Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Pensioners

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the Government's policies towards pensioners. [120936]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have introduced long-term reforms to enable everyone to receive a decent pension after a lifetime of work. For today's pensioners, we are spending £6.5 billion more, with about half that amount going to Britain's 3 million poorest pensioners.

Mr. Paterson: One of the great successes of the previous Government—[Laughter.] One of the great successes of the previous Government was to encourage the establishment of pension funds, which now exceed those in the rest of Europe put together. The present Government responded with a £5 billion annual raid on pension funds, so the savings ratio is going down and the

average 30-year-old must put away a further £200 a year to stay level. That policy is wicked and counterproductive. It was not forecast in the Labour manifesto. Will the Government withdraw it?

Mr. Darling: I have not come across the hon. Gentleman before, but I am glad to note that he has a sense of humour. He will be aware that occupational pensions had been growing for some considerable time before the last Conservative Government. Indeed, it is because of the success of occupational pension funds, which have been growing since the 1950s and 1960s, that so many people now have more income in retirement than they would otherwise have had.
One of the objects of the Government's reforms has been to ensure that, in future, 5 million more people will also have the option of getting into funded pensions through stakeholder pensions. We believe that the best way of ensuring that people have a decent income on which to retire is to encourage as many as appropriate to get into funded pensions. In addition, the state second pension will benefit 18 million people on lower incomes. Neither of those matters was dealt with by the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Although Labour Members have every right to urge the Government to give the best possible deal to pensioners, and to do even better than they are doing now, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party—which cut the link between earnings and pensions, which did not introduce free television licences, which would abolish the winter fuel allowance and which increased VAT on fuel—has no right even to raise the subject in the Chamber?

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is right. It is interesting that despite what the Conservatives have been saying over the past few weeks, the shadow Chancellor repeated on television last week that the Conservatives were also committed to increasing pensions in line with prices, and no higher than that. In addition,


the Conservatives are against the minimum income guarantee, which means that many pensioners would lose their £14 or £15 a week extra through that help; they would abolish the winter fuel payment, now worth £150; and they were the ones who doubled VAT on fuel, which hammered many of the poorest pensioners.
It is worth noting that because of this Government, over £6.5 billion more is being spent in support of pensioner incomes, and more than half that sum is going to the poorest 3 million pensioners. I believe that that is the right thing to do to tackle pensioner poverty which, like child poverty, has no place in a civilised, decent society. It is a scandal that the Tories presided over such high levels of pensioner poverty because of their unwillingness to do anything to help those who needed help most.

Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State said that after a lifetime of hard work, people were entitled to a decent pension. However, he knows that millions of married women retire on, if anything at all, just a pittance—as little as 8p a week in pension—because they opted for the married women's reduced rate. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of them claim that they were never told of the implications of that choice, or were actively misled? Will he join my call and institute an inquiry into the claims of those women, who feel a real sense of injustice?

Mr. Darling: I noticed in a Sunday newspaper a couple of weeks ago that the hon. Gentleman raised the point and said that he would take it up with me. I am surprised that he has waited for two weeks before doing so. Following that Sunday newspaper article, I decided to check what happened. The law was changed in 1977 because we did not want married women to pay the reduced stamp as they would lose out in later life. I looked at the leaflets that were available, which I may say are infinitely better than the ones produced by the last lot on inherited SERPS, because they explained what happened. If the hon. Gentleman can come up with anyone who has been misled, which he has not done in the past two weeks—perhaps his first port of call should have been me, rather than a journalist—I will certainly look into it.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend recall how time and again, during the period of the previous Administration, many of us virtually begged for some action to help pensioners during harsh winters, when the only scheme that was in operation meant that the temperature had to be freezing for seven consecutive days before it came into effect? Should we not warn pensioners of what would be likely to happen if there were a change of Government? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there is any truth in the newspaper story that next year the winter fuel allowance will be consolidated into the pension, that would be most welcome? Many of the more elderly pensioners participated in the most crucial war that this country has ever waged, and we should always remember with gratitude the role that they played from 1939 to 1945.

Mr. Darling: On the last point, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Many people who are retiring, or have retired, are on low incomes because either they did not make enough contributions to receive a pension or they did not have the opportunity to save through an occupational or

other second pension. When we came into office, 2 million pensioners were living on very low incomes, so we introduced the minimum income guarantee. We are spending some £6.5 billion—£2.5 billion more than it would have cost simply to restore the earnings link—almost half of which goes to the poorest 3 million pensioners who lost out in the Tory years.
My hon. Friend is also right about the winter fuel payment. The only action that the Tories took on winter fuel bills in the last Parliament was to double VAT on fuel. We have reduced VAT as well as introducing the minimum income guarantee.

Mr. David Willetts: Does the Secretary of State recall an article in The Times last week headed, "Darling U-turn over Pensions"? It was a report of the Secretary of State's speech at the annual dinner of the Association of British Insurers. I was so keen for the speech to reach a wider audience that I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Secretary of State to place a copy in the Library. He replied:
My remarks to the annual dinner of the Association of British Insurers were not delivered from a prepared text.—[Official Report, 11 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 478W.]
I have a document that looks suspiciously like the prepared text of the Secretary of State's remarks to the ABI. He knows his obligations under the ministerial code, so why did he not place the text in the Library? The explanation is clear: there has been a U-turn.
The Secretary of State used to say that stakeholder pensions were for people on low and moderate earnings; he now claims that they are for people on high earnings. He has changed his mind because he knows that the policy would otherwise fail. He will not tempt low earners with stakeholder pensions; instead, there will be a churning of people out of existing pension schemes into stakeholder pensions. The speech prepared the ground for the policy failure. It is not the speech that is ill prepared; it is the policy that is unprepared.

Mr. Darling: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in two parts. I take his allegation seriously. He claims that I delivered a speech from a prepared text; I did not—he has a draft that was placed in the Library by mistake. If I had placed it in the Library and said that it was a copy of my text, it would have been misleading because it is not the speech that I delivered to the ABI.
The hon. Gentleman was especially interested in my comment about stakeholder pensions. He will see from the draft that it is not there.

Mr. Willetts: It is.

Mr. Darling: No, it is not—the words I used are not there.
I saw the article in The Times; it was completely misleading. I said that we had always made it clear that the target audience for stakeholder pensions was moderate and higher earners, as we stated in the Green Paper that we published in December 1998. I contrasted that with the state second pension, which is aimed at lower earners who earn less than £9,500 a year. Our pensions policy is devised to help those on moderate and higher earnings


through stakeholder pensions, occupational pensions and other methods; the state second pension is devised to help those on lower incomes.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that far too many people who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee do not get it? How will he ensure that pensioners who are most in need receive the money to which they are entitled? If they do not receive it, the system fails.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. We are writing to all pensioners who, according to our records, may be entitled to the minimum income guarantee. On top of that, we shall run a major television advertising campaign, which will start to be shown on television from the end of this month until the autumn. We hope that we can thereby reach as many people as possible who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee because we want them to claim it.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the proportion of average wages represented by the basic state pension has dropped to 16.5 per cent., compared with 23.1 per cent. in the 1980s? Does he not accept that pensioners have a right to benefit from that general increase in incomes—a right towards which they have contributed by virtue of their national insurance contributions, and which they earned during their working lives?

Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that pensioners' incomes do not consist of only the basic state pension; most people who retire now receive the basic state pension plus a second pension, either through SERPS—or, in future, the state second pension—or through their occupational pension, for which they have always received help through tax relief and so on.
I should have thought that, coming from where he does, the right hon. Gentleman would have agreed with the main thrust of our policy, which is to ensure that we spend half the amount of money that we spend on pensioners on those who lost out—those who have either retired or who are retiring on very low incomes.
If we had introduced the earnings link, clearly that would have cost us less than we are spending, but it would not have helped the poorest pensioners. They benefit not only through the minimum income guarantee, but through the winter fuel payment, which is neither taxable nor taken into account for benefit purposes. I make no apology for the fact that the Government's first priority has been to help those poorest pensioners. The next job is to ensure that those with modest occupational pensions and modest savings are helped through the new pensioner credit.

Housing Benefit Fraud

Mr. Peter Brooke: If he will make a statement on progress in combating housing benefit fraud. [120937]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Countering housing benefit fraud continues to be a high priority for us.

The housing Green Paper, published on 4 April, sets out our plans and proposals to improve housing benefit and tackle fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently wrote to all council chief executives warning them to remedy weaknesses identified by the benefit fraud inspectorate. He made it plain in that letter that, if the BFI reports a local authority's persistent failings, we will direct the standards to be achieved by that authority with time scales for improvement and enforce them rigorously.

Mr. Brooke: Does the Minister recognise that those vanguard local authorities that have invested in fraud prevention measures may be unfairly penalised if the weekly benefits savings targets do not accurately reflect the success that they have achieved in prevention?

Angela Eagle: We changed the way in which the weekly benefits savings subsidy system worked in response to concerns expressed by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, which showed that it was an inaccurate test of the savings achieved. Weekly benefits savings are now much more accurately assessed, but, to recognise the change from the old system to the new, early this year we announced a change in the way in which we would pay subsidy, which included new incentives for local authorities to prosecute fraudsters and incentives for those local authorities that participate in the verification framework.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend extend her examination of benefit fraud to the non-delivery of benefit to legitimate claimants? Is she aware that in Hackney and Islington, the service is provided by a company called IT Net, and that, as a result of its inefficiency and incompetence, thousands of legitimate claimants have been threatened with the loss of their homes—council, housing association or private? Is not it also a fraud against them if their perfectly correct claim for a benefit is not met by the service and they end up being homeless as a result?

Angela Eagle: We are well aware of the problems being experienced in my hon. Friend's constituency and are keeping a close eye on them. I sympathise very much with the points that he made. It is clearly the case that those who are entitled to housing benefit should receive it in a timely fashion, but I must point out that under the framework of law left to us by the Conservative party, the legal responsibilities for delivering housing benefit lie with the local authority.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the hon. Lady recall press releases being issued early this year, trumpeting the success that the Government claim on housing benefit fraud? When they were released, was she aware that the situation on the ground was exactly the reverse? Is she aware that successful prosecutions for housing benefit fraud are down by 50 per cent. and that 40 per cent. of local authorities have no formal prosecution policy?
What action will she take to ensure that the Department correctly briefs Ministers on the true facts of housing benefit fraud? Given that the right hon. Member for


Birkenhead (Mr. Field) described the Government's fraud policy as nothing more than
the normal roller-towel press release…
will she undertake to issue fewer press releases about beating housing benefit fraud and to ensure greater application?

Angela Eagle: An awful lot of nonsense about housing benefit fraud appears in the press. A recent example of that was in The Sunday Times this week, which produced a hotchpotch of misinterpretation, misrepresentation and muddle. One of the figures that it came up with was that
the proportion of housing benefit fraud cases won…had collapsed from 38 per cent. to 18 per cent. in the space of a year.
That is wrong. The 18 per cent. figure is an estimate for the first half of this year. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the volume of prosecutions referred to lawyers this year has increased by 47 per cent., which is far better than the rubbish we had when that Conservative lot opposite were in charge.

Champion for Older People

Ms Linda Perham: If he will make a statement on his role as the champion for older people. [120939]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are determined that people over the age of 50 should have the same range of opportunities and chances as everyone else. Too many of the over-50s are written off. The cost to society is substantial; the cost to individuals is immense. Life should begin at 50, not end there.

Ms Perham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and congratulate him on his appointment as the champion for older people. Does he agree that that will give a higher profile to the inter-ministerial group on older people, and impetus to the agenda in the performance and innovation unit report, "Winning the generation game", which is about improving the prospects of older people aged 50 to 65? Does he further agree that age discrimination is a great barrier to many older people at work? If the code of practice on age diversity in employment does not work, will the ministerial group consider legislation on that issue?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In 30 years' time, almost half the population will be over the age of 50, so we need to change the way in which we think and the way in which individuals and the Government prepare for that enormous change in the demography of this country. Moreover, almost a quarter of the population will be over retirement age, which is why it is necessary to make changes now for long-term pension provision.
My hon. Friend's main point is about the workplace. It is a fact that many people over the age of 50 have retired not because they wanted to, but because they were forced out of employment. Unfortunately, for them discrimination is a fact of life. We have made it clear that if the code of practice that we published last year does not work, we will have to reconsider the matter. I am sure that every one of us would like to think that, if we are

over the age of 50, we have exactly the same chances and choices as people younger than that. Age discrimination is as unacceptable as any other form of discrimination.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I cannot help but observe that "Champion" was a wonder horse—the Secretary of State may be too young to remember that. It was a wonderful television programme, but it is a terrible description of an important job. In his new role, will the right hon. Gentleman assume responsibility for and take forward the pilot projects in the initiative on better government for older people, which have been extremely valuable? My area was one of the pilot areas. The money to mount these programmes to consult older people is running out. Is it the Government's intention to find the finance to enable them to continue and to be rolled out nationwide?

Mr. Darling: I am not sure I remember "Champion the Wonder Horse"; my mum and dad were reluctant to get us a television set. It could be that the hon. Gentleman, despite his youthful looks, is much older than I am, and that is why he remembers it.
One of my jobs is to examine pilot projects to discover whether they work. If they do not work, we will not continue with them. If they do work, and they ensure that older people are more involved in work, leisure activities or education, we want to encourage them. The object of this process is to ensure that Government and individuals focus on the fact that in the not-too-distant future almost half the population will be over the age of 50. That means that there has to be a seismic change in the way in which we all think about how to deal with what I believe is not a problem, but a great opportunity for this country.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: May I urge my right hon. Friend to give particular consideration to the plight of older people living in rural communities such as Scarborough and Whitby, who are somewhat remote from the facilities usually found in urban areas? Will he use his new post to take account of that significant group?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point, especially about transport. As he will know, one of the steps we have taken is the extension of concessionary travel to people who have retired, because we think they should have access to services and facilities. Our object must be to make opportunities for the over-50s as real in the country as they are in cities and towns.

Mr. David Willetts: I join the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) in congratulating the Secretary of State on his new role as champion for older people. He said in the speech to the ABI that he did not prepare, or did not deliver, or whatever it was, that his job was
to get people to think seriously about the challenges we face to ensure that everyone has the options and opportunities to make the most of their later lives.
Given those responsibilities, why does he not begin by meeting the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, who dismissed pensioners as "racist" and "predominantly Conservative"? At least the latter is becoming true, I suppose. How about a meeting with the Secretary of


State for Northern Ireland, the Labour party's chief political strategist, who said that there was "no mileage" to be had from pensioners?
Is not the truth that the right hon. Gentleman's target should not be Victor Meldrew, but closer to home? His target should be his colleagues, who abuse pensioners and therefore should not be surprised that pensioners are losing confidence in them.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman's opportunism knows no bounds. He was a member of a Government who increased VAT on fuel, which hurt older people more than most. He was a member of a Government who did absolutely nothing to deal with the problems faced by older people who were often thrown out of work through no choice of their own. He is now a member of an Opposition who are against the new deal for the over-50s—he would deny help to people who need it. He is in no position to present himself as somehow being on the side of older people or pensioners.
We are the party that, because of the economic stability that we are now building, has ensured that more people are in work, and we want more older people to be in work. We are increasing the amount that we spend on pensioners—£6.5 billion more than the Tories would ever have spent. The Tories' position on older people and pensioners is one of sheer opportunism, which the electorate have not forgotten.

Attendance Allowance

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: How many claimants receive attendance allowance; and what plans he has to improve the application process for this benefit. [120940]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Just over 1.25 million people currently receive attendance allowance, and the number continues to rise. The Benefits Agency is keen to improve the services that it provides and to reduce the number of unsuccessful attendance allowance claims. It is trialling new ways of taking claims, which will make the process more accurate and sensitive to the needs of claimants. The trials will include home visits to gather the required information, instead of claimants having to complete a lengthy questionnaire.

Mr. Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Many of my constituents who used to lead independent lives now need care and assistance from family, friends and Government. Will my hon. Friend assure me that those who clearly deserve attendance allowance will no longer have to humiliate themselves during a complicated application process?

Mr. Bayley: The number of people qualifying for attendance allowance continues to rise. During our first two years in government, the number receiving it rose by some 45,000. We are very conscious that filling in the forms is difficult for some elderly people, especially the elderly confused. That is why we are testing a new way of taking claims, involving a Benefits Agency officer

visiting the person concerned, sitting down with him or her and orally collecting the information needed for the form to be filled in. We hope that that will help.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: One of the recommendations of the recent report on medical services by the Select Committee on Social Security was that sessional doctors who carry out assessments for attendance allowance should have the proper amount of training from the Sema Group to honour contractual obligations. In response to that, I have received representations from a constituent, who is a doctor, saying that Sema is prepared to provide the training, but not to pay the doctors for it. Has the Minister any leverage over that?

Mr. Bayley: If the hon. Gentleman has an individual case to bring to my attention, he should do so, but let me tell him what the Government inherited and what we are doing about it. We inherited a training regime for the doctors who work for the Benefits Agency that was entirely ad hoc and that was run by a senior doctor in each boarding centre, but not against a national protocol. That meant that doctors were trained to different standards and to interpret evidence in different ways in different parts of the country. That led to confusion and to different decisions by Benefits Agency decision makers in different parts of the country.
That was unacceptable, and we are changing that. We have established a national system of training. For the first time, we are using trained trainers—trained postgraduate medical trainers—to deliver that training. We are improving the training available to doctors. We are extremely concerned that Sema did not fulfil its quota of days for training, for which it has been paid, in its first year. We will ensure that it makes up the shortfall in its second year.

Mr. Andrew George: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), what assessment has the Minister made of the Select Committee's finding that inaccurate assessments by examining medical practitioners are often given greater weight by appeal tribunals than those by consultants or general practitioners, and that examinations by EMPs are far too brief? What action will the Minister take to ensure that those assessments are improved?

Mr. Bayley: If the hon. Gentleman had read the report in detail, he would have been aware of the many actions that we are taking. First, the Benefits Agency gives equal weight to all evidence, irrespective of the source—whether it be from a general practitioner, an examining medical practitioner engaged by the agency, or a hospital consultant. Secondly, there is no limit on the time that EMPs spend on an assessment. They are under instructions to spend whatever time is necessary to produce a report that will enable the questions that have been asked by the decision maker to be answered.

New Deal (Lone Parents)

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for lone parents. [120941]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The new deal for lone parents is at the heart of our drive to end child poverty. More than 118,000 lone parents have participated in the new deal national programme and a further 20,000 took part in the earlier phases. One in three participants have obtained jobs—that is more than 46,000 since the new deal for lone parents started.
As announced in the Budget, from April 2001 we will be asking lone parents with a youngest child of five or over to have a work-focused interview. We want to ensure that all lone parents find out about the choices and support available to help them to move into work.

Mr. Brady: Was it not bad enough that each job created under the new deal for lone parents cost nearly £20,000—but is the Minister not especially embarrassed that the Government's own evaluation exercise has shown that lone parents living in the control areas were more likely to get back into work than those living in the new deal pilot areas?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has just shown considerable ignorance about the evaluation that has been published. He quotes the figure of £20,000 per job. If he had read the whole evaluation, he would have seen that the estimate was £1,388 per job. It is no good him selectively quoting—and drawing wrong conclusions from—a published estimate but not acknowledging another aspect of it—the £1,388.
We have been completely surrounded by different estimates from Opposition Members of the cost per job of the new deal for lone parents—there has been a wide range of incorrect estimates. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said in June 1998 that the cost was £30,000. A couple of months later, he said that it was £22,000. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said the next day that it was actually £24,000. Following that, in February 1999, he said that it was £15,000. A couple of days later, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) also said that it was £15,000.
Then, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that it was £24,000—but, in April 2000, he said that it was £19,000. Actually, the figure is £1,388.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose—

Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should just like to give you notice that, after that utterly inadequate answer to my question, I shall seek leave to raise the issue in a debate on the Adjournment.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I must move on to the next question.

Pension Increases

Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he will estimate the cost in the next financial year of linking pensions to the rise in average earnings. [120942]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): It is a pity that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) did not realise that he would stop debate on the question—

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend did realise.

Mr. Rooker: If that was the intention, it is unfortunate.
The cost of uprating the basic state pension in line with average earnings in 2001–02 would be an additional £400 million, on top of the expected £375 million increase in line with prices. Those figures are based on this autumn's estimates of a price increase of 3.4 per cent. and an earning increase of 4.9 per cent. Continuing to uprate in line with earnings would cost more than £6 billion by 2010, and £28 billion by 2030.

Mr. Prentice: Those figures are daunting, but may I express the situation in a different way? If pensions were linked to the increase in average earnings, this year, pensioners would be receiving a pension increase of £2.85 per week rather than 75p per week. I should also like to know why we cannot just tax well-off pensioners. The reason for not doing that is just lost on me.
The minimum income guarantee—[Interruption.] I do not want to raise my voice. The minimum income guarantee, which is going to the poorest pensioners, is linked to the earnings increase. However, for the next 10 years, all other pensioners will be receiving a real-terms increase of about 2 per cent. Over time, will there be a convergence in the treatment of the two groups? Does it worry my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers, as it worries me, that—with the minimum income guarantee and with the new pensioners tax credit—we shall be means-testing an ever-growing number of pensioners?

Mr. Rooker: These are indeed daunting figures, and that is why we should not play around with them. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, if we had only increased the basic state pension in line with earnings, by this year—within the Government's first three years—we would have saved more than £800 million. However, that money has gone, quite deliberately, in a redistributive way, to the poorest pensioners. Over the lifetime of this Parliament, the £6.5 billion extra that will be spent on the pensioner population is £2.4 billion more than we would have spent if we had only increased the pension in line with earnings, re-establishing the earnings link. As I said, that extra money has gone to the poorest pensioners. I challenge any hon. Member, least of all those behind me, to argue against a redistribution towards the poorest pensioners.

Mr. Simon Burns: Does the Minister agree that it is slightly odd that, when a Labour Back Bencher lobs a particularly sycophantic question to the Secretary of State about his being the champion of pensioners, he replies in a purring mode, whereas, when a more independent Labour Back Bencher asks a slightly more penetrating question, the Minister of State answers in a rather petulant mode? Will the Minister please tell me why most of my pensioner constituents believe that, in opposition, Labour Members promised to change the linkage to earnings? How does the Secretary of State have


the gall to claim the title of the champion of pensioners when, after the measly 75p per week pension increase, most of my pensioner constituents believe that he is not the pensioners' champion, but the pensioners' Scrooge?

Mr. Rooker: In answer to the first part of the question, I assure the House that my earlier answer would have been the same regardless of who had asked the question. Although I am not prepared to play around with those daunting figures, I will spell out the facts of the situation. It is a fact that, today, the average single pensioner's income is £132. It is also a fact that very few people exist on the basic state pension—which, as every hon. Member knows, is not intended to be the sole source of income. Pensioners should have either the minimum income guarantee or other pension incomes. At the last election, the Conservatives, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats all proposed exactly the same formula for raising the basic state pension.

Miss Geraldine Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the Government have helped the poorest group of pensioners, we must turn to the group of pensioners in the middle—those with small occupational or second pension schemes? They rightly feel that they need more help and support, but it would be foolish to restore the link with earnings across the board. That would do nothing to help the group in the middle.

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Wherever we put a limit, there will be some above and some below. No doubt, delegations from both sides of the House will argue about any change to the limits. After 14 years of the savings limits for pensioners being frozen by the previous Government, we have already announced that, from next April, the £3,000 and £8,000 limits will go to £6,000 and £12,000. That will bring 500,000 more pensioners within the minimum income guarantee. We announced in the Budget that, by November, we shall publish proposals for a pensioner credit that, in some way, will enable us to help those with small occupational pensions. Those with tiny occupational pensions—say between zero and £10 a week—would not be helped if we put £10 a week on the basic state pension. We would not be able to help the poorest pensioners because of the minimum income guarantee. We have to get help to those with small occupational pensions that they have saved and paid for. They rightly feel that the problem is a festering sore that no Government have so far dealt with. We are committed to dealing with it and have said so.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is the right hon. Gentleman happy that today the Secretary of State has said that the stakeholder system is aimed at moderate to high earners, when he himself has mentioned 10 times in Hansard that it is for low and moderate earners—and Ministers collectively have said that 44 times? Does he agree that, to curry favour with pensioners, the Department has spun the idea that they will get £2 from next April—or perhaps it might be £5 if they roll in the winter fuel payment? Perhaps he may care to comment on which of those is correct. Will he also tell us why the Government have spun tax credits for pensioners,

when they will have to wait until 2002 for them—after the general election? Is not the Government's pension policy all spin and no substance?

Mr. Rooker: I must disabuse the hon. Lady of one notion: we are talking not about a pensioner tax credit, but a pensioner credit, which is not the same. Only one third of pensioners pay tax. We want to get help to those identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). They will not pay tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the official Government figures, which are correct. Having sat through umpteen hours upstairs with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the hon. Lady knows that we intend to target funded stakeholder pensions on those earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. We have also said that the state second pension, with its low earners boost, is particularly helpful for those earning less than £10,000 a year. They are not excluded from stakeholder pensions; it depends on individual circumstances. Stakeholder pensions are available to people earning more than £20,000 a year and to people not at work, because they are not work related. However, the target group is those earning between £10,000 and £20,000 a year who have no second pension. They will retire in abject poverty unless they get a second pension. That means an occupational pension, a personal pension or the friendly stakeholder pension.

Minimum Income Guarantee

Mr. Phil Sawford: How many pensioners in the Kettering constituency are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee; and what steps he is taking to encourage further take-up of this benefit. [120944]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): About 2,400 pensioners in Kettering are benefiting from the minimum income guarantee. To encourage pensioners to take up their entitlement, we have launched a national helpline, which has already received nearly 31,000 calls in the last five weeks. As I said earlier, we are launching a national television advertising campaign on 30 May to ensure that as many pensioners as possible get their entitlement.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I welcome the work that he is doing to help our poorest pensioners and to ensure that pensioners are aware of their entitlements to MIG. Does he agree, however, that many pensioners will lose out on other benefits if they take up MIG, and will he consider the wishes of the many Labour Members who want him to restore the link with earnings?

Mr. Darling: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has just said, if we restored the earnings link, the very pensioners my hon. Friend is concerned about—the poorest—would be worse off. Because of the way in which the benefit system works, they would lose their benefit pound for pound. That is why we chose a different approach in MIG, which increases the amount of money pensioners on MIG receive by £14 a week for those under 75 and £16 for those over 75. I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree with me that the object of Government policy should be to ensure that the oldest and poorest


pensioners, who lost out in the 18 years that the Tories were in power, get the most help. Restoring the earnings link would have saved us £2.5 billion. We are spending more than that would have cost, but half the amount that we are spending goes on the poorest 3 million pensioners.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: How do I convince a 50-year-old man in my constituency—

Madam Speaker: Order. The substantive question is about the Kettering constituency.

Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on the future of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [120945]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): MIG is directly helping 1.6 million of the poorest pensioners. It should help about another 500,000 of the poorest pensioners who do not claim it, for various reasons. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, a major Government-sponsored take-up campaign will commence on 30 May. We will write to 2 million people among whom, we suspect, are the 500,000 who have been missed out. As I have already said, we are examining for the longer term how best MIG can provide help to those pensioners who have provided for themselves, particularly those with occupational and other small pensions and modest savings.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that answer and I welcome the publicity campaign. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that large numbers of pensioners do not understand MIG, and that there is widespread concern, if not hostility, among pensioners because of the complexities of the social security system? In the review of MIG, will he look again at the concept and the way in which it is applied, so that it can become a minimum income guarantee for all pensioners, not just those on income support?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend will know that, as I have said, more than 1.6 million pensioners are already successfully claiming MIG. Other pensioners are claiming council tax benefit and housing benefit and are eligible for MIG but, for some reason, do not claim it. That is a dilemma that we hope to solve through the take-up campaign.
I do not accept that hostility to MIG exists, although there is hostility to the process because some people do not want to go near a Benefits Agency office. However, they will not need to do so, because, once the campaign starts in May, they can apply over the telephone. All that they will have to do is sign and date a form. There has been hostility to the 40-page form which, among other things, asks whether one is pregnant, but that will not need to be filled in. Only the parts directly relevant will be needed.
Any remaining hostility will be assuaged by the announcement made in the middle of March that we will dislocate all pensions activity from the Benefits Agency to a totally new pensions service that will be devoted exclusively to pensions and pensioners.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The Minister keeps referring to people on small occupational pensions. Some

pensioners with occupational pensions look enviously at the minimum income guarantee. Will he say how large a lifetime pension fund they would have to have saved to match the minimum income guarantee?

Mr. Rooker: Not off the top of my head, as I am not armed with those figures. However, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's argument is not somewhat disreputable, in that he is setting one group of pensioners against another. He talks about people who do not have an occupational pension, a personal pension or a second pension, but many people never had the chance to make such provision, or could not afford it. He implies that somehow they have been feckless in their lives and that they therefore do not deserve the help of the minimum income guarantee.

Mr. Frank Field: I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a group of people who have been anything but feckless, and about whom I wrote to him after the issue arose at the previous Social Security Question Time. Some people with a small occupational pension are thereby ineligible for MIG. However, if they had been eligible for MIG, they would have received passported benefits, free housing and free council tax. In my letter, I drew attention to a simple reform. At present, eligibility is determined according to MIG income qualifying levels, but a better system would be to calculate the level of income for which people would be eligible if they were on MIG and gained housing benefit and council tax benefit in full.
I copied my letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wrote back to say that he had passed it on to my right hon. Friend, who was in charge of the review. It is good news, for pensioners and for the House, to have my right hon. Friend in charge of the review. When will he be reporting?

Mr. Rooker: By "he", my right hon. Friend means my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, as the pensioners' champion, is quite rightly leading the review. The point that my right hon. Friend makes is correct. Pensioners who have an income because they have a small occupational pension above the minimum income guarantee can be worse off under the current benefit provision: because they do not get MIG, they lose the other benefits. Those are the people to whom the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred. They are exactly the target group at whom our review is directed. We will report back to the House by the November statement, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced. By that time, we will have a proposal to deal with that very group of people.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: How do I convince a 50-year-old man in my constituency, on a low income and with no savings, to save for his retirement, given that he would need to save £100,000 so as not to qualify for the minimum income guarantee? Would he not be far better off spending that money on himself over the next 15 years, as he then could enjoy the minimum income guarantee?

Mr. Rooker: Well, I hope that the hon. Gentleman spelt out the facts of life to his constituent. Anyone of 50 who has not provided for a second pension is leaving


it a bit late. People on low pay cannot do much in that regard in the last 10 years of their working lives. The tragedy is that, for some years to come, people will come off the conveyor belt of work and enter retirement having not had the opportunity to save and put money by for a decent second pension. They will be dependent on the state, and the state will therefore have a duty to help them.
We have introduced the minimum income guarantee for those people who did not have the opportunity, during their working lives, to make provision for a second pension. I hope that the hon. Gentleman had the guts and courage to tell his constituent that the Tories would abolish it.

Disability-related Benefits (Appeals System)

Ms Julie Morgan: What plans he has to shorten the appeal process for disability-related benefits. [120946]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We have introduced a new system to streamline and modernise the appeals system for all benefits. For disability living allowance and attendance allowance, the right of appeal can now be exercised at an earlier stage. The appeals service has already made significant improvements to clear backlogs and reduce waiting times. We are seeking to improve the service still further.

Ms Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and I welcome his remarks. However, does he agree that waiting for appeals is stressful for constituents, particularly for those with mental health problems? Will he look into the case of my constituent, Mrs. Jenkins, whose disability living allowance was withdrawn in April 1999? She is still waiting for a tribunal, which is due to be heard in June 2000. This is causing her acute distress and mental anguish, and is confining her to her home.

Mr. Bayley: I can reassure my hon. Friend that I will certainly look at Mrs. Jenkins's case.
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, in her local appeals service office in Cardiff, some 21,500 cases were waiting to be heard one year ago, in February 1999, and more than half of that number—some 11,300 cases—waited for longer than six months. Today the figures have dropped, so that only 9,588 cases are outstanding, and only 2,161 are more than six months old. So we are making progress.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman have any plans to allow Motability cars to be retained during the DLA appeals process until it has been completed? Is he aware that a constituent of mine has been forced to hand back the car and make alterations to it, returning it to its original state and removing special hand controls? Would it not be better to have a system whereby the car was retained until the appeals process was completed? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the problem is something to do with the Customs and Excise arrangements on value added tax? Will he please undertake to look into the matter and write to me about it?

Mr. Bayley: I am aware of the case. The hon. Gentleman has written to me about it and I have replied—

it may have been one of the letters that I signed at the weekend. The Government have an interest in Motability, in that we pay the higher rate mobility component of DLA that pays for Motability cars. However, Motability is an independent charity and is responsible for its own rules. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is not possible for people who are not in receipt of DLA to retain their cars because the scheme receives considerable VAT concessions from the Chancellor and other Government concessions and support. That support can be given only because it goes to people who are in receipt of a benefit. Those who re not in receipt of a benefit unfortunately cannot retain their cars.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister accept that, while any improvement in acceleration in the appeals process is welcome, as long as it is consistent with justice, most claimants are looking not so much for the appeals process as the substance of their claim? Will he also accept from the case of Colin Hughes, and many like him, that there is very little link, if any, between the extra costs of disability and the means of the disabled person? In the light of that, would it not have been better if, instead of their Scrooge-like imposition of means-testing on incapacity benefit, the Government had introduced a more effective medical test for new claimants?

Mr. Bayley: I am slightly reluctant to discuss an individual case on the Floor of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman has referred to it on two occasions, and I think that I can refer to some details that the claimant, Colin Hughes, has made public.
I admire Colin Hughes greatly. He is a severely disabled man who has made a successful career within the BBC. The difficulty that he faces with his benefit is that the independent living fund administrators were not aware of his salary at the BBC. Had they been aware of his salary, he would have received no support at all under the old means-testing rules, introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party when it introduced the independent living fund. As a result of the changes that our party has made to relax the means test to provide a greater return from employment for the relatively few people who are supported by the independent living fund and who can work, Colin Hughes would be able to keep a greater proportion of his earnings—which is a good thing—if the question of his savings were resolved. I have discussed with those who manage the independent living funds ways in which the savings that anybody else with perhaps a longer life expectancy might have put into a pension scheme can be put into some form of trust fund so that they can be disregarded in whole or in part.

Old-age Pension

Mr. John Wilkinson: What as a percentage of average earnings was the single person's old-age pension in May (a) 2000, (b) 1999, (c) 1998, (d) 1997 and (e) 1996. [120949]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In April 1999, the basic state retirement pension was 16.6 per cent. of average earnings. In April 1998, it was 16.8 per cent., in April 1997 it was 17 per cent. and in April 1996 it was 17.4 per cent. The percentage for April 2000 is not available at present,


but as the average single person's total pensions income is £132, the percentages that I have given can be doubled because no one is expected to live on the basic state pension alone.

Mr. Wilkinson: Do not the figures demonstrate that the Labour party's election manifesto was, in essence, fraudulent? It said:
We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation.
Is that not particularly so given that the manifesto said something else? It stated:
The basic state pension will be retained as the foundation of pension provision.
The foundation is clearly crumbling. The living standards of ordinary state pensioners are declining in comparison with those of people in work, particularly now that they

do not receive the married couple's tax allowance, dividend tax relief or tax relief on medical insurance premiums. In other words, they are getting a bad deal, as the 600 Labour councillors who lost their seats last week stated in arguing that that was why they lost.

Mr. Rooker: That is another example of refusal to see the totality of pensioner incomes. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues where they think the millions of pounds for the winter fuel allowance came from. The money did not come from the national insurance fund; it came from the wider tax payout and is a tax-free benefit for the pensioner population which has arisen from the better economic performance of the country. Where do they think the money for the free television licence for the over-75s came from? It is tax free, and it came not from the national insurance fund, but from the wider pot created by the British taxpayer.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a brief business statement. The House is already aware that after the Opposition day business tomorrow, we shall take Northern Ireland business. That business will now be a motion on the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, followed by the motion on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000.

Sir George Young: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House when the flags order will be tabled? I understand that it is not yet available in the Vote Office. On the substantive point, the Opposition are, of course, prepared to sit, possibly beyond midnight, to deal with important parliamentary business. I am sure that that approach to parliamentary affairs is shared by Government Members.

Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that if the order is not now available in the Vote Office, it will be shortly. I expected it to be tabled about now. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Can my right hon. Friend inform us whether, in the interests of parity between the two communities, the Secretary of State will have power under the flags order to order the flying of the tricolour over Government buildings?

Mrs. Beckett: That is very much a matter for the debate.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the right hon. Lady understand how disappointed I am that, as the business statement precedes a statement on Sierra Leone, she did not tell us that we would have a debate on Sierra Leone? The situation in Sierra Leone is so complicated and difficult—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that this is a short business statement, which

was clear and tightly defined. The Leader of the House can be questioned only on the comments that she has made. If he is prepared to keep to that, I shall call him again, but no other business can be discussed with the Leader of the House.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Madam Speaker: Shall I give him a second chance?

Mr. Blunt: Does the Leader of the House understand how disappointed I was that her business statement was about one particular point of business, and not about other issues of more pressing and immediate concern?

Madam Speaker: The right hon. Lady fully understands that.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she really means that the information will be available within the next couple of hours? It has been quite difficult to follow the matter from a distance, although I understand the reasons for that. It would help facilitate an effective debate if we could hold consultations today after seeing the order.

Mrs. Beckett: I certainly anticipate that that will be the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to make information and briefing available as fast as possible.

Mr. William Ross: Given that most people in the United Kingdom would consider it a matter of course that the national flag should fly over public and Government buildings, why was that ever denied to the British citizens of Northern Ireland? Furthermore, why have the Government decided to give IRA and other terrorists a further year—over and above the two years that they have had already—before they hand over their illegal weapons?

Mrs. Beckett: None of that is a matter for me.

Madam Speaker: Quite right.

Sierra Leone

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, I would like to make a statement about Sierra Leone.
In his statement last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House about the serious security situation in Sierra Leone and the implications for British citizens and others for whom we have consular responsibility. He said that the British Government had taken the precautionary measure of deploying military assets to the region. British forces were deployed to allow for the safe evacuation of British nationals and other entitled personnel. Essential to that has been the task of securing Lungi airport, which, as the Foreign Secretary said, will be extremely valuable in allowing United Nations forces to build up to their mandated strength over the next month. We have seen evidence of that in the recent arrival of two additional Jordanian companies, numbering some 300 personnel. That remains the clear and unambiguous position on the deployment of British forces. It was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister on 11 May, and it remains our position today.
I am confident that the House would agree that the deployment of UK forces to Sierra Leone has been an outstanding success. Faced with a rapidly deteriorating security situation, UK forces have evacuated almost 450 people. The airport was secured quickly and effectively. Although we have consistently made it clear that UK forces will not be deployed in a combat role as part of UNAMSIL, the presence of UK troops on the ground has helped stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone and we are providing technical advice to the UN as to how matters might be further improved.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the armed forces on the work that they have done so far. It is a remarkable demonstration of their flexibility and speed of deployment, identified as key requirements in the strategic defence review. Both President Kabbah and Kofi Annan have welcomed the contribution that British forces are making.
The situation in Sierra Leone remains volatile and we must all be concerned about that—especially for the detainees. We have received reports that a number of UN personnel have been released, and I understand that the British officer, Major Andrew Harrison, is fit and well and is under the protection of the Indian battalion in the east of Sierra Leone. Although that is welcome news, we continue to work for the safe release of all those currently being detained by the Revolutionary United Front.
Freetown remains calm, but tense. Outside Freetown, clashes between Government troops and the rebels continue. For the moment, the rebels appear to be on the back foot. The Government of Sierra Leone and the UN forces have retaken the initiative. The arrival of Jordanian reinforcements at the weekend has been a significant boost to the UN mission. Reports to me this morning from the Chief of the Defence Staff have been encouraging.
The forces we have deployed are those we consider necessary to carry out their primary task effectively. The 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment is currently shouldering the main burden in Lungi. However, the maritime forces we have deployed—including our

amphibious capability—provide vital flexibility for the joint force commander in what remains a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. If attacked, our forces have the rules of engagement and firepower to allow them to respond robustly.
In that context, while our forces remain, we shall do what we can to assist the UN mission. Its success is essential to ensuring long-term peace and stability in Sierra Leone. UN forces had been doing a difficult job in uncertain and dangerous circumstances—disarming large numbers of ex-combatants despite not being up to full strength in numbers of personnel and in equipment. Our presence has helped to ensure confidence, and has contributed to the stabilisation of the situation.
As a result of the presence of our forces, we have been able to give significant assistance. British officers are providing advice to UNAMSIL; they are giving technical military advice to the Government of Sierra Leone and, indeed, to the UN in New York. We have assisted the UN with the transport of vehicles into theatre by air. We have airlifted 230 Jordanians by helicopter from the airport at Lungi to Hastings, where the Jordanian battalion is strengthening its position.
I recognise that there have been questions about the length of our commitment. The UN plans to build up its forces to their authorised level of about 11,000 over the next month. We are in contact with those countries that are contributing troops to the UN force—in particular, with India, Jordan, Bangladesh and Nigeria—and are urging them to bring in troops as soon as possible to reinforce UNAMSIL. We expect that once the UN mission has been reinforced by those troops, our role at the airport will no longer be required. I assure the House that UK forces will stay no longer than is necessary.
However, even when our forces withdraw, we will not end our political or diplomatic support for the UN and for Sierra Leone. When it is safe to do so, we will continue with our programme of assistance to help train and build effective, democratically accountable Sierra Leonean armed forces that we announced in April. We will also continue to contribute military observers to the UN mission, and if required, technical advice to UNAMSIL.
I have made it clear that we are committed to the safe evacuation and protection of our nationals and to supporting the UN in its mission to restore stability in Sierra Leone. The deployment of British forces for a limited period on those tasks is a model of the rapid deployment concept that was at the heart of the strategic defence review. It has been much admired and acknowledged by all concerned. Our armed forces are doing an excellent job, which is acknowledged all around the world. However, there is no question of the UK taking over the UN mission or of being drawn into the civil war.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Let me reiterate our support for the Government in this respect: our thoughts are definitely with the service men and their families at this incredibly difficult time. Conservative Members offer them our full and unstinting support in whatever lies ahead for all of them. The whole House will be suitably proud of how they have operated, and of how we anticipate that they will operate, however long they are in theatre.
We in the House have a duty to give our forces clear objectives as well as support. In that, the Government have, so far, been found wanting. The undertakings given


to my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary last week were different from the position in which we now find ourselves, which goes beyond the withdrawal of British nationals. The Government cannot allow that to continue and, to that extent, the statement is long overdue. We believe that it should have been made last week.
As I have pointed out, it now appears that, whatever reservations we have, British troops are in de facto full support of the UN forces and President Kabbah. Regardless of what others have said about us not being part of the UN mission, the reality is that we are in complete support of it and President Kabbah. Reports over the weekend show that British troops are patrolling Freetown and manning road blocks. We hear that special forces are operating in the countryside and that British officers are, to all intents and purposes, running the day-to-day operation of UN forces.
What role does the Secretary of State envisage for the Royal Marines, who are currently on board HMS Ocean? What can they be expected to do given the fact that, if they sit on board ship for four weeks, some of their capacity may deteriorate? Their deployment would widen the operation.
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether British air assets, which are currently on board HMS Invincible and HMS Ocean, will take part in any operations? Are Harrier aircraft, for example, likely to be used for reconnaissance or even close air support roles for the UN?
Regardless of our concerns, the objective now must be to make sure that British troops can operate untrammelled by any political indecision. Major-General Ken Perkins, who wrote to The Times today, said that the political masters must "not impose ridiculous constraints" on the forces.
The Government cannot artificially separate British combat troops from other British activities in theatre. Clearer rules of engagement are needed to allow British forces the flexibility to operate as the circumstances require, and to ensure that they are not locked into an artificial self-defence mandate that risks repeating the mistakes that were made in Bosnia, Srebrenica and even in Sierra Leone itself with the UN. The Secretary of State was not clear on that, so I urge him to clarify the position of our troops, which was too vague in the statement. Will he state what the rules are and how wide they can be stretched?
On the commitment to withdraw our troops within four weeks, last Wednesday, the Prime Minister spoke about deploying them for up to seven days. On Thursday, however, the Foreign Secretary moved that figure to four weeks. That slippage must be explained. Furthermore, it leaves us feeling rather cynical about the Government's capacity for decisiveness in the matter. When the Government said that they will withdraw our forces within four weeks, presumably they had in mind circumstances in which they could be withdrawn. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the build-up of UN troops. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to listen to questions, and seem to think that they have a God-given right to do what they like with our forces. However, that is not the case.
I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. Will he tell us whether the build-up of UN troops to 11,500 is the factor limiting the time for which we will be out there? Will our troops stay out there to complete that build-up,

or do the Government expect to withdraw them if those conditions are not met? The Secretary of State must surely realise that the real worry will be how we appear to be making the UN dependent on British forces in Sierra Leone, with all the risks that that entails.
If nations due to transfer soldiers to the UN are led to believe that the UK will stay longer than four weeks, as seemed to be the case from the statement, is there not a danger that they will feel under less pressure to meet their obligations early on? What categorical statements has the Secretary of State had from nations due, as he said, to produce troops for the operation?
On overstretch, the commitment puts our rapid reaction force into Sierra Leone. What reserve does the Secretary of State have and, should difficulties erupt in places such as Kosovo, Iraq or even Zimbabwe, is he content that it is sufficient not to stretch us beyond our capability to follow those up?
The Foreign Secretary has been less than frank throughout the whole deployment. As a result, he has put our service men in difficulties, with varying statements from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence creating problems. There are serious questions about the Government's role, which remain to be tackled at a later date. Today, however, the Government must stop all the sliding and messing around and give our troops a clear sense of what they must do, making plain that they may operate flexibly within the terms given to them in a way that will allow them to meet their objectives without any more shilly-shallying.

Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting our troops' position, but—I too have a "but"—it is regrettable that he has chosen to try to make party political points this afternoon and, indeed, in several newspapers this morning. My statement today was wholly consistent with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is a matter of considerable regret that the hon. Gentleman has talked about our service men and women being in difficulties, as there is simply no evidence of that. He has asserted that to make a rather poor political point which, on reflection, he may well regret.
The hon. Gentleman invited us to set out clearly our objectives. That has been done by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I have repeated those precise objectives, so there really is no difference between them. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues examine what was said last week and study the text carefully, they will discover that what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said is precisely the same as what I have said today. There has been no change in the objectives.
On the specific concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, he ought to know better than to ask about the deployment of special forces. He has supported the Government in the past. He knows full well that it is well established practice that Governments never comment on the deployment of special forces.
We have made it quite clear that the Royal Marines on HMS Ocean are there as a precautionary measure. They are to give forces on the ground greater flexibility, should they be required. Again, that is a wholly sensible deployment on advice of the chiefs of staff.
There is no need to go into greater detail on the rules of engagement. Our forces have been given robust rules of engagement that will allow them to defend themselves and ensure that they can do the job on the ground effectively. That is what the House would expect. I assure the House that those are the rules of engagement that were given—again, in complete agreement with the chiefs of staff and subject to the advice and consent of the commander on the ground.
We have made it clear that the build-up and reinforcement of UN troops will take place over the next month. We have discussed that carefully. The Jordanians already have forces in theatre. We expect further Jordanian forces to arrive very soon. Indian forces are under way and we anticipate contributions from both Bangladesh and Nigeria. That is a substantial programme of reinforcement of both people and equipment. We are confident that that will add significantly to the ability of the UN force to deal with a difficult situation on the ground.
Overstretch has become one of the hon. Gentleman's themes. We have tackled the problems of overstretch faced by the Army during the Kosovo campaign, reducing the Army's commitments from 47 per cent. at the height of the Kosovo campaign to 27 per cent. He knows that that has been done. He should also know that the spearhead battalion is specifically to deal with such emergencies; that is what it is there for. Indeed, we have already allocated a further force to act as the spearhead battalion in the event of that being necessary. He really should know that that has no impact whatever on the alleged overstretch of our armed forces.
I am extremely disappointed that, right across the weekend and continuing today, the hon. Gentleman has sought party political advantage from the situation. It has been a tradition that the Opposition support British forces in the field, and that means supporting those who take the decisions as well.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I add my congratulations to the forces that have been deployed in and around Sierra Leone, and of course the support of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends for those who are in the field? However, is it not clear that a week is a long time in Sierra Leone and that United Kingdom forces are now doing much more than was predicted last Monday, to an extent that an early withdrawal would be deeply destabilising?
Is it not also true that the role of the United Nations is no longer that of keeping the peace? Should we not recognise that the presence of UK troops, whether by accident or design, has become essential to the success and credibility of the United Nations effort in Sierra Leone? In those circumstances, subject to there being no prejudice to our commitments and to obtaining from the UN Security Council a much more robust and effective mandate, should not Her Majesty's Government offer UK troops as part of the UN force in Sierra Leone?

Mr. Hoon: I repeat that the UK forces are doing precisely what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that they would in his statement this time last week. He said that they were present to ensure the evacuation of

British nationals by securing the airport, in the process allowing for the reinforcement of the UN contingent in Sierra Leone. That is precisely what they have been engaged in and precisely what has been happening over the past week.
On the contribution that the forces have made to the UN in Sierra Leone, as I said in my statement, the situation on the ground has clearly enormously improved as a result of the presence of British forces, which has, for example, freed other UN forces for other tasks elsewhere in Sierra Leone by undertaking the responsibility of securing the airport. That has been an advantage. Certainly British forces have boosted the morale of the Government forces in Sierra Leone, which have had a good deal more confidence in going about their task in the past week than previously. The presence of our forces has contributed to that. However, we do not anticipate that British forces will become part of the UN force in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicion that some of those who are asking for clearer objectives are really saying, "Mission accomplished, let us fold our tents. Evacuation is complete, let us depart." If we had done that, the inhabitants of Freetown would have been left to an awful fate, and the UN would have been discredited. As Kofi Annan showed in his warm thanks to the Government and to our forces, had we not been there, the UN would have found it extremely difficult in future to launch such an operation.
What longer-term lessons does my right hon. Friend draw for the relationship of the United Kingdom and our armed forces with the UN in terms of training, communications and in ensuring that the UN is properly strengthened to carry out tasks in Africa and elsewhere?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has asked me questions of a long-term nature that would probably be better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, the operation demonstrates the importance of ensuring that the UN has sufficient effective force and equipment in a theatre to enable it to do the job that was contemplated. One of the difficulties that the UN has undoubtedly faced in Sierra Leone is not having the authorised numbers—the numbers planned by the UN—available at the start of the operation. The actions of British forces have been designed to ensure that those numbers can be reached. Securing the airport will allow reinforcements to arrive relatively quickly.

Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is entitled to the support of the House, as are our forces in Sierra Leone and offshore, at this difficult time? However, may I suggest that it does not help if he claims that the operation is a tremendous success for the strategic defence review? He is drawing on the particular capabilities and qualities of especially the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines and associated arms, which have been built up over decades by successive Governments.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly and unsurprisingly gives evidence to the House that the contribution of British forces has helped to support the morale and confidence of President Kabbah's forces. However, one of the real difficulties resulting from any early withdrawal from Sierra Leone is that it will have exactly the opposite


effect. I do not expect a detailed reply because it is clear that General Guthrie's report will be critical in this respect, but I hope that when considering what General Guthrie says about the actual military situation, the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Secretary will consider further what can be done to sterilise as far as possible any support going to the RUF from adjoining or other territories.

Mr. Hoon: If I gave the right hon. Gentleman the impression that I was claiming for the SDR the virtues of this rapid deployment, I apologise to him and to the House. However, the reality is that the SDR set out to build on the capabilities previously established. The deployment demonstrates—we have had discussion about the potential availability of both maritime and air assets—the importance of being able to deploy rapidly ground troops and supporting forces of a joint nature. The significant point about the SDR is that the conflicts that we face in future will most likely require rapid deployment.
I spoke to General Guthrie this morning, and I understand that he has had the opportunity of travelling round part of Freetown and seeing the British forces that are deployed there. I accept that his advice will be critical as to how the military campaign is continued. I anticipate that he will speak to representatives of countries that will be likely to deploy further force into Sierra Leone. When he returns to the UK, which will be shortly, we shall take further decisions in the light of what he has to report.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the outpouring of support from the Sierra Leonean community in this country and the pictures and reports from that country, showing how delighted people are at the role that Britain is playing to restore and defend democratic government in Sierra Leone? Would it not be appalling if any politician in Britain, by omission or commission, gave the impression that we were interested only in saving the lives of white Europeans, and that we could not care less about black Africans?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In addition to the Sierra Leonean community in the United Kingdom, President Kabbah spoke personally to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to thank him for the contribution that Britain has been able to make. In the plans for evacuation, I want to make it clear that we had a responsibility not only to British nationals, but to all the countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, that did not have diplomatic representation in Sierra Leone, for which we undertook consular responsibilities. It was never our intention, even as part of the evacuation process, simply to evacuate UK citizens.

Mr. Edward Garnier: What were the characteristics of Mr. Sankoh, the leader of the RUF, that commended him to the Government last year, and how has he changed since?

Mr. Hoon: The United Kingdom did not make a judgment last year about the character of Mr. Sankoh, and would not do so now. He is responsible for breaching the agreement that he entered into last July. It was not a perfect agreement, but it offered the prospect of peace and stability in Sierra Leone. It was not a perfect solution;

it was the best on offer. For the purpose of trying to preserve peace and security in Sierra Leone, at least it offered some respite from the appalling civil war.
It is Sankoh who has gone back on that agreement. He and his forces are responsible for the appalling bloodshed that has occurred since, and that is why the international community, through the United Nations, must take the action that it is taking now. We made no judgment about his character last July. It was simply the best offer that was available.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will have read reports in the media that the Sierra Leonean Army and the Revolutionary United Front have been involved in some appalling atrocities, against each other and against the civilian population. Can he assure us that when the training programme finally begins after the immediate conflict is over, the SLA will be fully trained in the need to treat troops and civilians decently?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend touches on a picture in Sierra Leone that is quite different from the one that we are used to when we think about disciplined armed forces. In Sierra Leone, bands of people are loosely attached to particular leaders and can switch from one side of a conflict to another at a moment's notice. It is an extremely uncertain, unstable, volatile situation. That is why it is important that we announce the need for effective training. Part of that training will undoubtedly be to provide the necessary discipline and commitment to the decisions of a democratically elected Government. Those are the kind of contributions that I believe that British trainers can make to the armed forces in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Julian Brazier: In his statement the Secretary of State made much of the role of the strategic defence review, and in an earlier answer said that the operation had had no significant impact on overstretch. Given that the SDR envisaged three parachute battalions, two of them in role, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many soldiers are left in the other two parachute battalions, and how long it would be before one of them could be used in a similar operation? How long would it take to stand them up?

Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the designation of the spearhead battalion is not necessarily and solely a designation given to a parachute battalion. The designation rotates around the armed forces that are in a position to complete the job. That is why, in answer to the question about the impact of overstretch, I made it clear that in the short term there is no impact on overstretch. The short-notice availability of the spearhead battalion is designed to deal precisely with such an emergency situation. That is the purpose of the battalion. The question of how many other members of a parachute battalion are available does not arise in the context in which the hon. Gentleman puts it.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend share my anxiety that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Conservative spokesperson, appears to express dissent from the idea that United Kingdom forces should be acting in full support—I use the hon. Gentleman's precise words—of the United Nations? Does my right


hon. Friend agree that it is not in Britain's interests that the United Nations mission should fail? That would be good neither for the future for Sierra Leone and the region nor for the ability of the United Nations to act elsewhere in the world on our behalf and that of other United Nations member states.

Mr. Hoon: I invited the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who speaks for the Opposition on such matters, to reflect more carefully on his words. I am confident that when he reads what he said about the United Nations, he will have some further thoughts. Clearly, all hon. Members support the United Nations and its efforts to preserve stability around the world. It had and continues to have our support for the difficult decisions that it made and tried to enforce in Sierra Leone.

Mr. Bob Russell: The Secretary of State rightly referred to our armed forces' professionalism, which all hon. Members will endorse. He specifically mentioned the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment. Will he join me in praising the 230 members of the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment from the Colchester garrison who are in Sierra Leone, along with 130 men and women from support units? How much longer will our forces have to act as the policemen of the world? Overstretch and back-to-back tours need to be tackled. I invite the Secretary of State to say that we will call upon other countries to put in their forces.

Mr. Hoon: I commend all British forces that are involved in the operation and, indeed, all British forces wherever they are deployed. They are rightly regarded as the best of their kind in the world and they are in constant demand. I acknowledge that; my job often involves saying that there is a limit to what we can do. We were consequently able to reduce the overstretch that resulted last year from the Kosovo operation. Those decisions have already been made. As I said in my statement, we are encouraging other countries to reinforce their existing contingents in Sierra Leone. We are wholly confident that they will do that.

Mr. David Winnick: It should be a matter of satisfaction that British service personnel are upholding the authority of the United Nations and international law. The Opposition may criticise, but the majority of Labour Members are proud of what is being done. Why should we allow a bunch of outright murderous criminals and torturers to take over Sierra Leone? There is no reason for that to happen, and I hope that it can be avoided at all costs.

Mr. Hoon: I know full well from the reports that I have regularly received from those forces deployed to Sierra Leone that they are determined to do an excellent job both on behalf of the British Government and in terms of what they perceive to be the right action for their service careers. I am confident that one of the reasons for the current success of recruitment to the armed forces is the excellent job that our armed forces do as a force for good around the world.
On my hon. Friend's second question, we support the efforts of the United Nations to uphold the charter and the principles that guide this country as well the international community.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Since the 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment is based in Aldershot, the Secretary of State will not be surprised if I express my admiration for the professionalism with which the spearhead battalion has undertaken its obligations. It is led by Colonel Paul Gibson, who distinguished himself in Kosovo. However, families obviously want to know when the episode is likely to conclude. Does the Secretary of State have genuine confidence in the United Nations' ability to deliver an effective force to Sierra Leone by the middle of next month? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked, what happens when British troops leave? Will the situation go pear-shaped again? In that case, we shall see television pictures that will horrify the British people. That will lead to demands to keep British troops in place, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) would like.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the supporting forces based in his constituency. I am also grateful to him for raising the issue of families, because we all tend to emphasise the contribution that the forces make, but perhaps sometimes overlook the fact that they have families at home who, understandably and rightly, worry about the circumstances in which their husbands, generally speaking, are deployed. He is right to mention that and, certainly, much effort has gone into ensuring that the families are properly briefed on the circumstances in Sierra Leone.
On the withdrawal, we anticipate that reinforcement of the UN contingent in Sierra Leone to its authorised level will continue to produce the stability that we have seen very recently. I said, "for the moment" during my statement, because I recognise that the situation in Sierra Leone has been especially volatile, but we anticipate that the level of reinforcement—of both people and equipment—available to the UN will make a significant difference on the ground.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express a certain unease in the genuine hope that my right hon. Friend will satisfy it? What is the analysis of where the rebels come from and where they get their support? Is not it true that Freetown and the rest of Sierra Leone are two different communities—Freetown very much being made up of the descendants of those who were involved in slavery? There is a rather different community up-country. Are we certain that the rebels—undoubtedly very cruel people—have not got a good deal of support up-country? On the question asked by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), what will happen when we exit? The two communities are very different, so how can we be certain that trouble will not continue?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend raises important questions about the nature of the rebel force. During the past few weeks, I have certainly tried to understand what motivates the rebels, whether ethnic divisions exist and whether there are intellectually definable reasons why the rebels are active at present. The reality is that they appear to be motivated by no more than greed and a lust for power.


They do not control large parts of the country; they are extraordinarily unpopular in most areas. They control parts of Sierra Leone, but by no means all of it. It would be a false picture—if my hon. Friend sees it like this—to suggest that the area around Freetown is somehow controlled by the Government and the remainder is controlled by the rebels. The rebels control only parts of Sierra Leone and they have achieved that by ruthlessly intimidating the population, which is why they are so thoroughly detested.

Mr. Michael Howard: In the light of the Secretary of State's previous answer and his earlier response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and in the context of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy, will he explain the basis of their distinction between Mr. Sankoh, whom they imposed on President Kabbah as Vice-President and Minister of Mineral Resources, and Senator Pinochet, whom they proposed to extradite to Spain?

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very dramatic, but completely erroneous comparison. The reality is that we did not broker last year's agreement, which was the best arrangement that the international community thought acceptable for Sierra Leone. Mr. Sankoh was not imposed on Sierra Leone; an agreement was entered into, but Sankoh has breached that agreement and plunged the country again into a destabilising and savage civil war. It is vital that we are able to secure a situation in which that agreement is upheld.

Jane Griffiths: I fervently hope that the deployment of troops and, ultimately, the UN mission will be successful. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be sure that we can stem the tide of conflict zones not just in Sierra Leone but in many parts of Africa, we must address the politics of the diamond trade, which is fuelling conflict and scarring the heart of Africa?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made that point in his statement last week. I referred a moment ago to what appears to motivate the rebels, and undoubtedly greed and the diamond trade is uppermost in their minds.

Sir Peter Tapsell: How many British subjects are still in Sierra Leone who wish to be evacuated?

Mr. Hoon: None who wish to be evacuated are in Sierra Leone at the present time. We cannot be entirely sure how many remain. An estimate would be in the order of 400. Some will have made their own way out of Sierra Leone, so there may be less than that. As on previous occasions, not only in Sierra Leone but in other crises, our experience is that many people prefer to remain where they perhaps have a home and a business, and tough it out. Although we have strongly advised that British citizens should leave, I realise that a number of them will remain throughout the crisis.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Although British troops went in with a clear mission to extract Commonwealth and European nationals, their objective seems now to have changed to that of a support

mechanism for the United Nations. Why cannot British troops be placed under UN command, so that it is clear that they are part of the UN? Is there not a danger that, if they remain separate from the UN, they may be asked by President Kabbah's Government to undertake economic objectives, such as securing the diamond-producing areas for his Government? We need serious clarity on what the British troops are there for in the longer term.

Mr. Hoon: There is clarity, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend believes that, somehow or other, the mission has changed. The mission has not changed. It was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last week that the purpose of deploying British troops to Sierra Leone was to secure the evacuation of Commonwealth and European nationals, and at the same time to secure the airport for the reinforcement of the UN contingent. That remains the position, so nothing has changed. Those British troops have a particular and limited objective, which is precisely why they will not come under the control or command of the United Nations.

Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Secretary of State paying attention to the lessons of other and earlier peacekeeping operations, which are that we either get all the way in or stay all the way out, that there is no third way, and that half measures risk lives unnecessarily? There is a case for a full commitment, but that could involve two fully equipped armoured brigades, which we do not have, or do not have available, after successive defence cuts. Bearing that in mind, is he happy with the situation in which we have a battalion plus of our finest soldiers in an African civil war without a single armoured vehicle?

Mr. Hoon: Although it is important that we learn lessons from earlier conflicts, it is equally important to recognise that no two conflicts are ever the same. It is important that we make judgments in the light of the particular conflict with which we are having to deal. For the moment, I do not anticipate the circumstances in Sierra Leone in which a substantial armoured brigade would be of any great assistance in the limited role that we have set for British forces, which is to protect and secure the airport, and to allow for the evacuation of British and other nationals. That is a precise role, and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view that it is impossible to find a middle way to deal with these issues, provided that we indicate clearly and precisely what we expect of British forces. We have done that, and I am confident that they can complete that mission successfully.

Mr. Jim Murphy: Given the uncertainty that my right hon. Friend has again spoken about this afternoon, may I discourage him from following the Leader of the Opposition and tying himself and our forces, who are doing such a marvellous job, to a specific time scale for withdrawal, but rather to remain committed to the specific tasks? Furthermore, in light of the rapid deployment of our personnel, will my right hon. Friend put more effort into the continuing discussions to establish a Europewide rapid reaction force, so that we can operate in concert with our European neighbours in such crises and civil wars?

Mr. Hoon: I will heed my hon. Friend's warning, and ensure that I do not follow the strictures of the Leader of the Opposition.
I think this deployment demonstrates the importance of a concept for which Opposition Members have expressed some support—that of rapid deployment: sending forces quickly to a particular crisis or theatre. The importance of that was recognised at European level in the setting of the Helsinki headline goal. Obviously, the more all the European nations can fulfil that role, the more even will be the distribution of the burden—specifically that between Europe and the United States—and the greater will be the contribution that European nations can make.

Mr. John Maples: The Secretary of State did his best to excuse the Foreign Secretary's misjudgment in the Lomé negotiations, but no Member should doubt that it was the Foreign Secretary who insisted that the unspeakable Mr. Sankoh be released from detention, that his death sentence be lifted and, furthermore, that he become a Minister in President Kabbah's Government.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, although nearly all of us—indeed, probably all of us—wholly support the use of British troops to evacuate British citizens and people for whom we are responsible, and although I would support the giving of financial, technical and logistic assistance to President Kabbah, I do not believe that British troops have any business fighting in a civil war in Africa? They are coming very close to that, and the Secretary of State for Defence will find it a lot more difficult to get them out than the Foreign Secretary found it to get them in.

Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's last point first. This was the final point that I made in my statement. We are not involved in a civil war; we are not taking sides in a civil war. Moreover, the Lomé accord was the result not of a British negotiation, but of a negotiation entered into by the parties. Those parties accepted that it was better, albeit difficult, to involve Sankoh in the process of government as the price that they must pay for peace and stability, rather than the continuation of an appalling civil war. It was a very difficult decision, and no doubt, with the benefit of hindsight, we might say that it possibly was not the most sensible decision; but at the time it was the best offer that was available.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman pass my congratulations to the forces on their astonishing skill at arms in so quickly making a profound difference to the military situation in Sierra Leone?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also answer two questions? First, does he intend to retain logistic support for the United Nations from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships after the main forces have departed? Secondly, will military advisers left by the Government and the United Nations be United Nations badge troops?

Mr. Hoon: We have already given the United Nations some logistic support, and a number of requests have been made to us. We assisted, for instance, in flying the Jordanian reinforcements from Lungi to Hastings, another airport where the main body of the Jordanian battalion is

located. We have engaged in logistic operations of that kind, and will continue to do so. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific answer, because it will depend on all the circumstances as events unfold, and it would not be right for me to give such an undertaking at this stage.
As for the training forces, I do not expect circumstances to arise in which they will necessarily be UN cap badged. I made it clear in my earlier remarks that we would allow such a contingent to go into Sierra Leone only when we judged the circumstances to be safe, and it is plainly not safe at present for it to engage in training when a large number of people are still determinedly engaged in a civil war.

Sir David Madel: A major plank of Government defence policy is close co-operation with France. Have the Government made a request for help from the French Government? If so, what was the response?

Mr. Hoon: We co-operate with a number of countries—with France, and with other countries around the world. In particular, we are currently co-operating with countries that have offered airlift, for example, to get reinforcements into Sierra Leone. We are discussing on a daily basis with countries such as Jordan, India and Bangladesh what kind of forces they will send into the theatre. That is a regular communication.
I know that a number of Opposition Members have become obsessed with the position of France. France is an important partner of the United Kingdom in a number of different organisations, and will continue to be so.

Mr. Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State has outlined the difficulties that the Government face. Having listened carefully not only to his initial statement, but to his replies to my hon. Friends, I find him slightly complacent. It seems to me and, I think, to many hon. Members, that the key to the seriousness of the matter is the fact that we have sent the Chief of the Defence Staff to Sierra Leone for four days. What will he do there? He has obviously not gone there to conduct a drill parade, or to inspect the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes stores. Presumably, he has gone there to evaluate seriously the extent to which we will make a major commitment there. If his advice to the Government is that we must make such a major commitment, what will the Government's action be?

Mr. Hoon: I would be a lot more persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's assertions of complacency if he backed them up. He has just had the opportunity to say why he thinks the Government might be complacent, but he singularly failed to do so. Such rhetorical flourishes assist no one.
The Chief of the Defence Staff was already due to visit Sierra Leone. [Laughter.] I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches appear to believe in the conspiracy theory of politics. It is obviously something that they have been nurturing over their three years in opposition. The reality is—I repeat it for their benefit—that the Chief of the Defence Staff was due to visit Sierra Leone. Before he set off on that visit,


we discussed whether it would be sensible for him to go. He was keen to go there to see British forces in action on the ground—and quite right, too.

Mr. John Burnett: The Royal Marines on HMS Ocean have been off the coast of west Africa for three or four days now. The Secretary of State said earlier that that was a precautionary measure. I well remember that, after the Aden withdrawal, I spent some weeks off the coast of Aden cooped up in a commando ship. It is pretty frustrating. What plans does he have to get those troops ashore?

Mr. Hoon: I have to say that those troops have not been there for three or four days, but they are ready and available as a precautionary force, should we require them. However, there are no specific plans at this stage to reinforce the existing forces on the ground. We shall look at the situation as its unfolds, but, if it continues as it is, we might not even need those forces. They are there to provide greater flexibility to the force in Sierra Leone, should we require them.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: When the situation in Sierra Leone is juxtaposed with the Prime Minister's speech in Chicago last year, it is almost a classic case of where intervention, on the Prime Minister's terms, should take place. The RUF is supported by Liberia, which sells the diamonds that the RUF controls in Sierra Leone. Otherwise, they are a bunch of gangsters who hold their position in the country by force of terror. As President Kabbah was democratically elected, there is a classic case for intervention.
Our troops are now on the ground. Unless the Government grasp the nettle of making the decision to get out, having discharged their obligations to the British national interest, surely they must, if they are going to take on a wider national interest, make up their mind to commit fully to a United Nations mandate, with the UK, in effect, leading a UN operation to sort out the source of the problem: the RUF's control of the diamond fields.

Mr. Hoon: I have had tide of the fax which the hon. Gentleman helpfully sent to the Ministry of Defence in urging the Government to commit British forces to a UN contingent. I am afraid that he has had no more success in persuading me than he has in persuading his own Front-Bench team.
We do not judge that it is appropriate to commit British forces to the UN contingent simply because they are contributing successfully to the UN mission by ensuring the security of the airport. That valuable task is providing the UN force with enormous confidence. It is a task that they are deployed to continue and to complete.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Now that British forces have fulfilled their primary role in an exemplary fashion—namely, the evacuation of those British nationals who wish to leave—can the Secretary of State tell us who is paying for the enterprise? Is the money coming out of the sorely pressed defence budget, or is there a special account from which he can draw in the Foreign Office, labelled ethical foreign policy perhaps? Can he say what conceivable British interest, beyond the extrication of our nationals, merits putting British service men at risk over a prolonged period?

Mr. Hoon: We are keeping a close account of the costs—which, for the moment, are additional costs. We should bear in mind that some of those forces were already deployed on other exercises, so that they were already being paid for. Consequential costs are still being identified. We have agreed with both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with the Treasury that we shall continue to monitor those costs, and that we shall decide later their attribution between different Departments.
As for the hon. Gentleman's final comments, the reality is that we are there supporting the United Nations. We are there to ensure the evacuation of British personnel, and to fulfil our responsibilities as part of the international community. Those seem to be objectives that most hon. Members, at any rate, ought to support.

Point of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Madam Speaker will be thankful that this is not one of those points of order to which she has to say that she has had no request for a statement from a Minister. It is on a matter that I believe concerns the House of Commons.
Over the weekend, and not least in today's edition of The Times, there has been ample comment on the legal aspects of the Lockerbie case as it pertains to the Crown Office. We all understand that the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence aspects of the case are matters for the House. I am concerned about the Crown Office aspects—which, incidentally, are the matters of the greatest contention. It is now argued that those matters are, of course, for Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament, and that the House of Commons has no locus whatever in discussing matters pertaining to the Crown Office in Edinburgh.
If Lockerbie had happened yesterday, it might have been a clear-cut case. However, as it happened 12 long years ago, and as it has been a matter of continuing comment, particularly in relation to Mr. Boulier and to Mr. Lumpart, his engineer, of Mebo, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reflect—or to ask Madam Speaker to reflect with her advisers—on the issue of whether, if developments go forward as anticipated by serious members of the press, this is purely a matter in which the House of Commons has no say whatever? Some of us might think that, whatever view one takes, the House of Commons definitely has a locus in the issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that I am as grateful as Madam Speaker would be that, in this case, it is not a matter of giving the stock reply to the hon. Gentleman. However, I think that the matter tends to be more a matter for debate. Nevertheless, I shall of course ensure that Madam Speaker notes the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and, if a ruling on the matter can be given by the occupant of the Chair, undoubtedly it will be given. At first sight, however, it does not seem to be such a matter.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The whole history of fur farming in the United Kingdom has not been a very happy one. Since its introduction, it has been dogged by escapes from fur farms that have resulted in very large public sums being spent on eradication programmes. The coypu eradication programme cost about—in today's figures—£4 million. Attempts to eradicate mink after escapes from mink farms, when they were established in the United Kingdom, cost about £1 million. Therefore, about £5 million has been spent on trying to deal with the consequences of escaped animals from United Kingdom fur farms. With the associated escapes have come environmental damage, damage to indigenous wildlife, damage to stock and feeding birds, and the unquantified cost of trying to deal with them by trapping and control.
A range of welfare concerns, about how animals are reared and kept in fur farms, has been expressed by the Government's own advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and in independent research. There are also complaints from people who live adjacent to fur farms about smells, nuisance and flies.
The history of fur farms is not happy. The Government announced the introduction of the Bill on 22 November to fulfil our pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I acknowledge the strength of what the Minister has said, particularly in respect of the New Forest. The end to that environmental hazard is welcome, as is the end to a cruel practice. However, will he explain why, to achieve that desirable end, it is considered necessary to introduce into law what many of us feel is an obnoxious principle: that it is acceptable to farm for food, but not for pelt or fur? Could not the desirable objectives have been achieved at a lower cost?

Mr. Morley: No. I am well aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As long as fur farms exist, there is no guarantee that there will not be further escapes and further environmental damage for all sorts of reasons. That is why his local authority strongly supports the Bill and is keen for it to progress. The leader of his local council, who is a Conservative, has written to me in support of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Are we to understand that the Government justify their proposals on economic and environmental grounds and that they have abandoned the argument of public morality?

Mr. Morley: The principal reason is public morality. I have been rather generous in taking interventions before I have been able to set out the case and our justification for the ban.
A combination of factors make fur farming a matter of public morality. We believe that it is wrong to keep animals solely or primarily to slaughter for their fur.


Fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animals should not be destroyed or bred for destruction without a sufficient justification of public benefit. Our detailed consultation and the many representations that we received from the public and other organisations showed that the majority of the public share that view.
Fur farming is distinct from food production. If the primary purpose of keeping animals is the production of food, that provides a sufficient public benefit to justify breeding them for slaughter. That is so even if the production of fur or hide is a secondary purpose to the keeping of the animal. That does not mean that high standards of welfare should not be applied in any rearing system.
Animals are live creatures. It is one thing to breed and kill them for food, because we have to eat to survive. In the balance between respect for the dignity of animal life and our survival, we put our survival first. We do our best to make sure that the animals that we slaughter for food are well treated.
Animals should not be killed for the sake of it or just for the business of stripping their skins off their backs—not in the 21st century. It is not the Government's philosophy. We also share the concern that many have for the welfare of farm mink. That is not our principal motivation for introducing the Bill, but we have sought to ensure the highest possible standards as long as fur farming continues.

Mr. John Bercow: Denmark, Finland, Italy and Spain have made observations and France has volunteered a detailed opinion about the Bill. When do the Government intend publicly to reply to those representations?
In the interim, will the Minister cease to advance the public morality argument, in the evident absence of a credible precedent for its use? Would not it be helpful in informing the debate if the Government published the legal advice they have received that apparently enables the Minister confidently to assert that the Bill conforms to the European convention on human rights?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly repeat that assertion. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that it is a convention that the Government do not publish their legal advice—a convention to which Conservative Governments have adhered in the past. The Government's response to the observations he mentioned is imminent, and we shall ensure that the European Union receives that response. While it is true that France submitted a detailed observation, including objections to the Bill, the hon. Gentleman did not mention that the Netherlands has made a submission that supports our position and backs our arguments. I stress that it is the Government's view that the Bill is compatible with the treaty of Rome and the European convention on human rights.
The Bill will make it a criminal offence, in England and Wales, to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. It will provide a winding-down period extending at least until the end of 2002, and will allow the Minister to make a scheme providing for compensation for certain categories of loss. I understand

that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation to ban fur farming in Scotland. Consultation in Scotland revealed unanimous support for such a measure.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister is responsible for ensuring that a raft of European Union and British law on the welfare of caged animals is properly enforced. How can it be that rabbit A, kept in one cage under those regulations, can be raised and slaughtered for its fur legally, but—if the Bill is passed—the keeping of rabbit B, in an adjacent cage under the same conditions and monitored by the Minister, would attract a £20,000 fine for the person responsible, if he or she were caught? How can that possibly be logical?

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman takes a simplistic view of the matter, which is unfortunately not unusual. It is our intention to end the fur farming of all species in this country. Cases in which the animal is not farmed predominantly for their fur, but in which the fur or hide is a by-product, will not be affected by the Bill. If we argue that we are against the breeding of animals for fur on moral grounds, we cannot have exceptions for certain species. The legislation must apply to all species. In the past, some species farmed for fur have clearly been kept in conditions that were not acceptable under any welfare standards in the modern age. Other species could be farmed in the future in this country, unless we have such a prohibition in place. Therefore, there is a sound and logical argument for applying the Bill to all fur farming in the UK.

Mr. James Gray: The Minister will be aware that because of the current state of the sheepmeat market some sheep are kept specifically for the purpose of producing sheepskin. Will that be banned?

Mr. Morley: I am not aware that sheep are skinned in the production of wool. The skins are a by-product of the slaughter industry, and sheep are not kept predominantly for that purpose. Sheep have no bearing on the Bill.
At present, only mink are farmed solely or primarily for their fur in the UK. There are currently 13 licensed mink farms in England and none in Wales. Other animals which can be farmed for their fur include arctic fox, chinchilla, raccoon dog, sable and fisher.
It is not intended to prohibit the keeping of animals where the primary purpose is the production of meat, with fur production as a secondary purpose, as is generally the case, for example, with the farming of rabbits, as I have already stressed. Nor—in response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—will the Bill ban the production of fur or wool which can be clipped or shorn without slaughtering the animal, for example, the fur of angora rabbits or alpacas.

Mr. Gray: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I am sorry that I did not express myself more clearly earlier. I was not referring to sheep that are shorn for their wool, but to the substantial number of sheep that are kept specifically to be slaughtered so that their skin can be used for such things as sheepskin coats. I hope that I have spelt that out sufficiently clearly for the Minister, who obviously did not understand me before. Will that practice be banned by the Bill?

Mr. Morley: I am not aware of any farmer who keeps sheep with the primary or sole purpose of producing


fleeces. Sheep predominantly are reared for meat. They are sent to slaughterhouses, and fleeces are a by-product. In that respect, they will not be caught by the Bill.
The import and export of fur products will not be affected by the Bill, as they re outside its scope.
The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 creates a primary offence of keeping animals primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. Moreover, I can tell the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that a sheep farm set up for no other purpose than to produce fleece coats would certainly be prohibited by the Bill.
It is immaterial whether the keeper or another person carries out the slaughter. Clause 1 also creates the secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep animals for the prohibited purpose. Both offences can be committed by a company or an individual.
A person who keeps animals partly for slaughter for the value of their fur and partly for another purpose will be guilty of the offence only if slaughter is the primary purpose for keeping the animals. Under no circumstances that I know of does that happen in relation to sheep.
The definition of "value" is the commercial value of the fur. We anticipate that there will be relatively few cases in which a person is guilty of the secondary offence. An example would be where the director of an overseas company might have caused the company to have committed that offence. For both the primary and the secondary offences, the penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding £20,000.
Clause 2 gives the court power to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or other disposal of the animals following conviction for either the primary or secondary offence. A person claiming to have an interest in the animals may apply to the court to resist the making of a forfeiture order.
Clause 3 deals with the effect of a forfeiture order. It provides a right of appeal to the Crown court for anyone claiming to have an interest in the animals being forfeited.
Clause 4 gives a power of entry and inspection to enable the evidence of an offence to be gathered, and gives a power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order. Intentionally obstructing or delaying any person in the exercise of either power of entry will be an offence. The maximum penalty for such offences will be a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which at present is £1,000.
Clause 5 requires the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a scheme for paying compensation to fur farmers who incur losses as a result of the banning of fur farming. The clause also allows the National Assembly for Wales to make a compensation scheme.

Mr. John Burnett: The Minister will recall that he and I discussed compensation and other matters in relation to the original Bill. Will he elaborate on that point later in his speech?

Mr. Morley: I can deal with that point now. The original Bill was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I pay

tribute to the work that she did in bringing the Bill forward and exploring many of the arguments. The original Bill did not provide for compensation for income forgone. When that Bill was being considered in Committee, I gave an undertaking that the Government would consider an amendment that would not rule out the provision of compensation for income forgone. Provision for potential compensation for income forgone has been made available as part of the detail of the Bill.

Mr. Burnett: Given the draconian nature of Bill, surely it is only fair that people should be compensated on an arm's-length basis? That means that they would receive the market price for a business sold as a going concern.

Mr. Morley: The Bill contains provision to set up a compensation scheme. There will, of course, be consultation with interested parties about the nature of the scheme, and about how it should be constructed. There will also be provision for independent arbitration, and a reference to the Lands Tribunal. I think that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
We are trying to be as fair as possible about this. That is why the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom has written to the Government saying that although the abolition of fur farming would not of course be its preferred option, it wants the Bill to progress. There has been an element of doubt and uncertainty in relation to their members' businesses, which, it is quite right and proper, should be addressed as speedily as possible by the House.

Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again and to right hon. and hon. Members for their patience. Some of the dwellings on fur farms are covered by planning conditions restricting the use of those dwellings as ancillary to fur farms or agricultural use. Will the Minister confirm that instructions will be given from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to local planning authorities to allow them to overcome the restrictions and be sympathetic to lifting them?

Mr. Morley: This is rather a detailed point which has to do with the structure plans and planning priorities of local planning authorities. They will have their own views on this matter. There are alternative uses for fur farms, which are agricultural. Therefore, the provision for the house would not change in relation to some of those uses.
I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that once we start detailed consultation on the compensation schemes, planning will be discussed. I will be more than willing to consider and discuss that issue to assist existing fur farmers in diversifying into other businesses. I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

Mr. Hunter: I recall that in the Standing Committee considering the private Member's Bill last year, the Minister stated that detailed discussion of compensation was under way. Are we to understand that there has been no advance on that discussion in the light of the failed private Member's Bill last year?

Mr. Morley: No, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not recall saying that detailed discussion was


under way. There cannot be detailed discussion on compensation without this Bill, which puts in place the mechanism for compensation. This is an enabling Bill: the compensation scheme will follow, after statutory consultation and the laying of a statutory instrument. We cannot have detailed discussion until then. It is certainly true that we have been giving thought to how it will work, but we cannot finalise the details until we have had a chance to have a proper discussion and consultation with those who are affected.
Such a scheme will provide for compensation to be paid, whether or not the fur farmers are still in business when the ban comes into force. The details of the compensation package are not contained in the Bill, as I said, but will be the subject of secondary legislation once the Bill becomes law. Only licensed fur farming businesses in existence on 2 March 1999 will be eligible to claim compensation. Fur farmers were reminded on 30 November 1999 of that cut-off date, which was originally announced when my hon. Friend the Member for Garston presented her private Member's Bill in the previous Session. No compensation will be payable for expenditure on assets acquired after that date. Existing fur farmers have been notified of that.
It is envisaged that the scheme will be used to pay compensation where assets cease to have a use and the investment cannot be recouped by resale. I will decide whether to compensate for income after the consultation exercise, and the form that compensation will take.
Principal assets of fur farming are the land, buildings and equipment, breeding stock and young-stock for slaughter. No compensation should be required for the land, as it has alternative uses. Compensation may be required for buildings and equipment that do not have alternative uses. Compensation may be required for wastage of some livestock over a winding-down period of two to three years. Disputes over compensation claims would be settled by arbitration or the Lands Tribunal.
Clause 6 provides that the power to authorise a person to exercise the power of entry and the power to make a compensation scheme rests with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and the National Assembly for Wales.
Clause 7 requires the Minister to make a commencement order for the ban to come into force. That may not be done before 1 January 2003. The Bill will thus provide a winding-down period extending at least until the end of 2002.

Mr. Burnett: rose—

Mr. Morley: I think that I may be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. The purpose of delayed commencement is to give fur farmers an opportunity to adjust their affairs and wind down their businesses in advance of the ban. In particular, it provides an opportunity to slaughter any existing stocks of animals; to give notice to employees; to make arrangements for future employment and the future use of land on which animals are currently kept; and to avoid incurring new capital expenditure, other than any incurred for the purpose of complying with any statutory obligation.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would the Minister clear up a point for me? Since neither the eating of meat nor the wearing of fur is essential to human life, what is the moral distinction between the two?

Mr. Morley: Meat is a food source. I recognise that some people do not eat it, but they are in a minority in our society, which depends on meat production as an important food source. There is a clear distinction in that sense.
The power to make a compensation scheme will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The power can be exercised to enable compensation to be paid to fur farmers who close their businesses in advance of the date on which the ban comes into force.
The Government's view is that the Bill is compatible with the treaty of Rome and the European convention on human rights. The Government consider that, although the ban arguably has an equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, it is lawful under European Union law, being justified by article 30 of the EU treaty on the ground of public morality. As I have just outlined, there will be a winding-down period before the ban comes into force. Together with the payment of compensation for certain categories of loss, that will ensure, in the Government's view, that the Bill is compatible with the convention.
Many people have pressed the Government to introduce this Bill. I am glad to be able to move its Second Reading. There is considerable support for it in the country, and the fur farmers themselves want an end to a period of uncertainty. They want us to proceed with this measure in order that they may begin detailed discussions on compensation and phase fur farming out in a reasonable and orderly way.
I am convinced that the keeping of animals solely for fur is not justified on moral grounds in today's society. The Ministry has been involved in prosecutions in relation to welfare problems associated with fur farms. I will be happy to make available to any hon. Member who wants them the details of those prosecutions, including video and photographic evidence.
This reasonable measure has long been awaited, and I hope that it commands support from all right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The Bill sets a precedent, and an unwelcome one. Never before have a Government proposed an outright ban on a particular form of farming. We do not believe, and our view is endorsed by the National Farmers Union, that any Government should introduce legislation that seeks to criminalise the legitimate farming activities of a section of farmers. The Bill goes far beyond measures taken by successive Governments to regulate and enforce, but not dictate, what farmers can and cannot do in a free society.
The Minister has claimed that the NFU and fur breeders support the Bill. That is not strictly true. Many fur breeders are frankly desperate after years of harassment by animal rights protesters—perhaps a better description is animal rights terrorists. Faced by a Government with a huge majority who are intent on closing them down, those fur breeders are only too happy to throw in the towel, provided—the main point—that there is fair


compensation. In no way can their capitulation be described as support. There has been coercion, in tooth and claw.
The Bill does not have the support of the National Farmers Union, either. Most of the farmers affected are NFU members. If there is a legitimate welfare concern, the NFU would support measures to underpin the delivery of high standards of animal welfare through regulation. However, that is not the Government's intention.

Angela Smith: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment that the NFU would support measures to improve the welfare of mink on mink farms. What measures has the NFU supported to date?

Mr. Moss: It is not for the NFU to introduce legislation to control mink farming. The Government could have introduced such restrictions and regulations, but they have not done so—they have proposed a complete ban. However, I shall develop my argument on that point later.

Mr. Gray: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, as he may not have the relevant briefing to hand. The NFU strongly supported, among other provisions, the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, the Mink (Keeping) (Amendment) Regulations 1997, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, and the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, dated 1991. The NFU supported all those measures for the improvement of standards in mink keeping.

Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those details. The Government have completely ignored the NFU's recommendations.
The Government do not intend to introduce regulations. They hardly bother to justify their actions by reference to the welfare of mink on those farms. They know only too well that conditions are not wholly unacceptable; many farms are operating on lines identical to those of their European competitors. However, if there was an overriding animal welfare case for more stringent regulations and tighter controls, those measures would find acceptance on this side of the House, with the NFU and—I suspect—with fur farmers.
Why do the Government not take that road? One cannot but conclude that they are hung up on some warped ideology and skewered on the peg of political correctness.
The Bill is poorly drafted. Despite warnings during proceedings on the private Member's Bill last year, it is still not clear whether other farmers could inadvertently be caught by its provisions. There is a potential problem for farmers who breed rabbits for both meat and fur; they could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, if—when the value of the fur exceeded that of the rabbit meat—they could be accused under clause 1 of keeping animals
solely or primarily…for slaughter…for the value of their fur.
That problem could be overcome if the measure specified the species of animal to which it applies, rather than introducing a generalised catch-all. One is left feeling puzzled as to why the Government have not tried to rectify that anomaly.
Not only is the Bill poorly drafted, it is conceptually and legally flawed. Its conceptual flaw is that no reasoned justification has been given—although the Minister had ample opportunity to give one in his opening remarks. Its legal flaw is that it appears to run counter to European Union legislation.
A most telling contribution to the debate, and to discussion of fur farming in general, lies in an illuminating and interesting memorandum, dated 7 December 1999, from the legal experts of COPA—the Committee of Agriculture Organisations in the European Community—and COGECA—the General Committee for Agricultural Co-operatives in the EU—on the legality of national welfare measures from an EC perspective.
The key legal position is set out in Council directive 98/58/EC, which aims to establish common minimum standards for the protection of animals kept for fur farming. Under the directive, a member state can apply stricter provisions for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes within its own territories, but that opportunity is limited—this is the important point—by articles 28 and 29 of the EC treaty, as well as by the general principles of Community law; for example, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as defined by the Court of Justice.
Articles 28 and 29 refer to changes in the national production of certain products, including a ban that would influence trade between member states and could thus be construed as having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. As for non-discrimination—one of the fundamental principles of Community law—comparable situations should not be differently treated unless the difference is objectively justified. The Commission's memorandum states:
It is difficult to justify objectively stricter national measures or even a national ban when, at European level, scientific evidence suggests this kind of production.
Perhaps the most telling judgment in the memorandum is that which refers to proportionality. In the view of its authors:
A national ban of a certain type of production would be considered disproportionate if it could be shown to have been "manifestly inappropriate in the aim of animal welfare".
Furthermore, the authors point out:
Stricter national measures or even a ban motivated by ethical or political grounds, not limited to genuine or justified animal welfare, seem to be incompatible with the principle of proportionality.
Those are truly damning indictments. There can have been few, if any, Second Readings of a Bill on which the Minister involved has given such a totally unsatisfactory and poorly reasoned justification for legislation as that given by the Minister today.

Maria Eagle: If I have caught the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks correctly, he seems to be suggesting that the Opposition will oppose the Bill. Will he explain why, in the previous Session when I was the Member in charge of a Bill that was almost exactly similar, the Opposition did not oppose it?

Mr. Moss: The hon. Lady will have to wait until the end of the debate to find out what will happen. In the main, we oppose the Bill, but we shall not vote against its Second Reading; there will be a free vote.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend, whose researches have obviously been legion, will recall that, when I was the


Opposition spokesman on this subject, I said that the previous Bill's supporters had to answer a number of questions. To the best of my knowledge, those questions have yet to be answered. Is that not the answer to the hon. Lady's point?

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend's point is well made.
Last year, on the Second Reading of the previous Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), the Minister spoke of the Government's determination to end fur farming, primarily on animal welfare grounds. The Government's emphasis now, in justifying this Bill, has been on the grounds of public morality. They have said—the Minister reiterated these points today—that they remain
convinced that no moral justification exists for fur farming in the U.K.
and that
there are over riding moral arguments in favour of a ban and a general public interest in removing this particular source of livelihood.
However, as I have pointed out by quoting from the Commission's memorandum, the public morality line—lifted, it would seem, by a rather desperate Government from article 30 of the EC treaty—would certainly be challenged, and would most likely fail, under the tests of non-discrimination and proportionality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, Finland, Italy, Spain and Denmark have written to the Commission about the Bill and sent in their observations, while France, as the Minister confirmed, has submitted a detailed opinion. Because a detailed opinion has been sent, it is my understanding—perhaps the Minister could confirm this when he winds up—that the Government cannot approve the Bill until June. Meanwhile, they are obliged to respond to that French detailed opinion. The Minister confirmed that the Government have not done that yet, so it may help us to know when the Government propose to ask for the detailed opinion from France.
So that there is no doubt as to what is covered in directive 98/58/EC, I make it clear that its definition relates to all animals
bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes.
However, the memorandum to which I referred earlier points out:
With the adoption of Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, a national ban on certain types of production of animal species which are covered by this Directive and covered by common Organisations of the Markets is no longer possible.
The Minister's own advisers and the other civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must have serious reservations about the Bill. If they are so confident that it conforms to European law, why did they think it necessary to notify the Commission about it? Why was it also deemed necessary to include in the Bill a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his interpretation of the European convention on human rights? That is certain to be tested in court, as the Bill appears to breach a fundamental right guaranteed under protocol 1, article 1, which states:
every legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

Of course, in law, possessions include farm animals. The Bill may also breach article 14, on discrimination.
In light of the Minister's failure to address those legal questions, we—along with the National Farmers Union—call on the Government to publish the legal advice from which they concluded that the proposed ban was compatible with EU law.
Given the sheer weight of that legal opinion from the EU, one is horrified and perplexed by the Government's attitude. Why are they blindly pressing ahead with the Bill, which was not a manifesto commitment, although it was mentioned in Labour party dispatches? It will not influence the wearing of fur—which, apparently, is now on the increase—or affect fur farming elsewhere in the EU. The Bill will simply hand an increased market share of fur production and trade to our EU competitors. As I have said, it has already provoked a reaction from other fur-producing countries, which are now committed to taking the Government to the European Court.
If the Bill is passed, compensation to producers—to which I shall return later—will entail a cost to the taxpayer. Sums ranging from £500,000 to £5 million, which could be much better spent on other Government services, will be involved. What are the Government's priorities? What is one to make of a Government who set as a priority for parliamentary time a Bill that will, on the spurious grounds of public morality, rob of their livelihoods 13 innocent farmers who are operating legally—especially as regards EU law?
The issue is no longer one of animal welfare. The living conditions of mink on fur farms are not in question. The Bill demonstrates the Government's fixation with presentation, which they put above substance, and with populism, which they put above the rights of minorities.

Mr. Morley: In my opening remarks, I explained that animal welfare was one of several issues relating to morality. A recent report from Nimon and Broom outlines welfare problems with the keeping of mink, stating:
The high level and pervasiveness of stereotypies among farmed mink and the incidence of fur chewing and even self-mutilation of tail tissue, suggest that farmed mink welfare is not good.

Mr. Moss: That is hardly a public morality issue of the kind that the Government seek to use to justify the Bill. Indeed, it is an animal welfare issue, and, as we have just said, animal welfare is no longer at the forefront of the Bill.
We welcome the fact that improvements to the earlier private Member's Bill have been incorporated in the Bill. It is proper that consultation should take place with fur farmers under clause 5(3), and that disputes should be referred first to arbitration under clause 5(4)(b) or for determination by the Lands Tribunal under clause 5(5). Frankly, that procedure is so painfully drawn out and laborious that the provisions are hardly worth the paper on which they are printed.
The restriction in the private Member's Bill excluding losses of income from any compensation scheme has now been dropped, but there is still no guarantee in the Bill that claims for losses of income will be eligible. It is important for all concerned, and in the interests of natural justice, that the Minister, in his wind-up speech, give an assurance that compensation will cover loss of income.
The industry genuinely fears that the Government intend to cheat it. Paragraph 26 of the explanatory notes speaks of compensation costs of £400,000 for assets,
and perhaps four times that amount if income were to be compensated.
That £1.6 million would be totally inadequate, given the size of claim from one producer alone of some £5 million.
Fair compensation—this point has already been raised—should be the value of the fur-farming enterprise at an open market sale price in the context of a willing purchaser under current European legislation. Anything less will be seen as robbery and a reneging on a verbal agreement given by the Government.
A cynic might well conclude that, having failed in their manifesto commitment to ban fox hunting—effectively caving in to a perceived backlash from the countryside—the Government have cast around for some other issue to satisfy the demands of the animal rights lobby—which, lest we forget, gave £1 million to the Labour party before the election. Bingo, there on the shelf was the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston. It was the only animal rights issue on the shelf.

Mr. Gray: I have a small correction. My hon. Friend gave the impression that there was a Labour party manifesto commitment to ban fox hunting. There was of course no such commitment; there was a commitment merely to a free vote on the issue. Equally, however, there was no Labour party manifesto commitment to ban fur farming.

Mr. Moss: I agree with my hon. Friend's second point.
The real reason for the Bill before us is a Labour party commitment to the animal welfare lobby, from which, of course, it received a handsome payment. It is a pay-off to that lobby, despite the fact that it is certain to be challenged in the European court, will incur considerable costs, and sets out to crush the legitimate interests of a tiny minority. This Government are blundering on with specious legislation because of their vindictive political correctness.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am delighted that the Government are at last taking action to end one form of animal cruelty and to fulfil a pre-election pledge—not before time. It has taken them three years, but better late than never. I have long hoped that such a Bill would become law. Indeed, I tabled an appropriate early-day motion way back in June 1997, which had considerable support from hon. Members. I am therefore delighted at this Second Reading.
Today's debate allows the House to decide whether the welfare implications concerning farmed animals, and public concern over the breeding and killing of animals for no more than fur, are sufficient grounds to outlaw the legal practice of fur farming. Doing so is a responsibility that I take very seriously. Under the United Kingdom's constitution, we may all do what we like unless there is a law against it. That means that, as law makers, we must carefully consider when overall liberty should be

curtailed. Having considered that issue, I reached the conclusion many years ago that fur farming should definitely be banned.
I am sure that my view reflects that of the majority of people in the United Kingdom—even, I understand, representatives of the National Farmers Union, who have not asked hon. Members to vote against the Bill. The NFU has certainly not contacted me, even though when it wants something desperately, it normally ensures that it makes contact.
The Government have justified their support for the Bill on the ground of public morality—we have just heard the argument. My support for the ban is based predominantly on animal welfare grounds—and I make no bones about that. The downright cruelty that fur farming generates must be stopped.
At this time of year, mink in fur factory farms are giving birth. After six months of hell in small cages, their offspring will be killed, ultimately by gassing—in order, frankly, that some pretentious person may end up wearing a mink coat. I find that totally objectionable. In this morning's edition of the Financial Times, an article headed, "Attempt to ban fur farming may go to European Court", was accompanied by a photograph of a fur farmer in Finland, showing the cages in which the animals are kept.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: In a minute.
The cages are not even big enough for the animals to turn round. That is absolutely disgusting, and it is one reason why I firmly support the ban.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Steinberg: I give way to the hon. Member from—

Mr. Gray: From where?

Mr. Steinberg: From Teignbridge.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman makes his point about the cruelty caused to animals, well knowing that current legislation could deal with that in any event. Will he comment on the Parliamentary Secretary's remark that the moral distinction between eating meat and wearing fur is that only a minority wear fur? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that analysis?

Mr. Steinberg: Yes, absolutely. I make no apologies for saying that I find the practice of farming and producing animals purely for cosmetic value to be distasteful and disgusting. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister, but my view is clear as well.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Steinberg: No. I shall continue for a little longer and then I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

Mr. Morley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Steinberg: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the hon. Member for Teignbridge


(Mr. Nicholls) to misrepresent my remarks. I did not say that the difference between meat and fur was that one was a minority interest and the other was not. Food production is an essential part of our society, but the production of fur in this country is non-essential, because there are many other options.

Mr. Steinberg: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made the point clear for the Hansard record. As I have said, my view is clear as well. If an animal is produced purely for cosmetic value, that is a disgraceful industry that should be stopped.
Fur farming is not a huge industry in this country. We are all well aware that there are about only 13 farms breeding mink. The animal is not indigenous to the UK, and it needs an environment that is difficult to replicate in the caged conditions of a fur farm. Mink were brought here only for the purposes of the fur trade. Poor husbandry led to inevitable escapes into the countryside, and most hon. Members know that mink cause considerable damage and havoc when let loose.
Concern about the poor standards on mink farms led to mink-keeping regulations being passed by Parliament. Those led to an improvement over the years, but by the 1950s and 1960s the United Kingdom had an established population of feral mink. Such was the Ministry's concern that during the 1960s it financed an attempt to obliterate mink from the countryside. However, numbers had grown so large that the campaign had to be abandoned.
In more modern times, mink escapes have been due to inadequate husbandry and to the actions of various animal rights groups. Their concern about the conditions in which animals are kept and about their ultimate fate is undoubtedly well meaning, but the impact of releases has been devastating in the areas upon which they have been inflicted.
Mink may be here to stay in the UK, and the legacy that fur farming will leave in the countryside will need managing for some time. Ironically, some research shows that mink numbers are being reduced in areas where otter numbers are increasing and otters are reclaiming their natural aquatic environment. The irony is that otter numbers have risen in part because of a ban on their being hunted by dogs. That method has also been used to control mink numbers, but in a rather unsatisfactory way, because of the damage caused to sensitive riverbank environments. It is an argument for another day, but it is worth noting that mink have been better controlled by a ban on hunting with dogs than they were by the other legislation.
It is the semi-aquatic environment needed by mink that is so difficult to provide on a mink farm. Indeed, there is no attempt to provide it. We have all had the opportunity to see footage of the conditions in which mink have been kept in this country. They have been inadequately housed and there have been poor welfare standards. There are signs of cage madness in their behaviour, and even cannibalism. It is not a pretty sight, and it is unacceptable.
I expected Conservative Members to ask, "Have you been to a mink farm?" The answer is that I have not. However, no one can deny that the conditions that we have seen on film are wrong. Nor can the fairly recent convictions for cruelty on fur farms be disputed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), who chairs the parliamentary group on animal welfare, is in hospital, but he hopes to come to the

House tonight for the vote. He debated the point on Radio 5 with a fur farmer. I remember him asking for the opportunity to visit the farm. He was told by the fur farmer that he could come by all means, but only if adequate prior notice of his visit was given. That tells us much about fur farms in the United Kingdom.
Some hon. Members will undoubtedly argue that if the problem is one of standards, we should pass legislation to deal with it. I cannot agree. I do not believe that adequate standards for creatures such as mink will ever be in place in fur farms.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does not the hon. Gentleman see an inconsistency between admitting that legislation on fur farms is already in place and has led to convictions in some cases, and supporting a Government who allow the free import of meat from many parts of the world, including other parts of Europe, where animal welfare standards are abysmal?

Mr. Steinberg: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I only wish that the Government had the power to prevent such meat from coming into the country. We do not have that power, but we have the power to prevent mink farming. That is within our jurisdiction. If he wants to introduce a private Member's Bill to stop the imports that he describes, I shall support him vigorously.
Mink farmers have had the entire 20th century to meet the standards, and have not done so. That answers the hon. Gentleman's point. Under existing legislation, convictions for cruelty still take place. Clearly, that legislation has not worked.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a tragedy that many people in Britain are cruel to their pet dogs. Plainly, the legislation to prevent cruelty to pet dogs is not working. Would he argue that we should ban the keeping of pet dogs, because some people are cruel to them?

Mr. Steinberg: I would certainly ban some people from keeping pet dogs. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to do something about that, I shall support him. I entirely agree that there are many people in this country who are irresponsible and should not be allowed anywhere near a dog, let alone be allowed to keep one.
Every chance has been given to stop cruelty to mink, without success. The end product is by no means a necessity. It is not a by-product of a farm that is producing food or fulfilling any useful need. I cannot support the continuance of what might be described as vanity farming, considering all that the animals go through so that what some people consider a superior item of clothing can be produced.
Over the years, there have been many campaigns on the issue, with many memorable slogans. Perhaps the one that most people remember is that fur coats are worn by beautiful animals and ugly people—a powerful statement, but perhaps a little unfair. It should say ugly, naive and uninformed people, but the general point is strong.
As for compensation, I have heard the argument that there should be none, as fur farmers have exploited the animals for long enough and made enough money out of it not to be compensated. However, I do not accept that. If the ban is successful, there is a legitimate need to


compensate those who will lose their livelihood as a result of the legislation. All fur farmers are entitled to compensation, but it will not be automatic. The Bill should make it automatic.
I understand that some kennel owners wanted compensation after the introduction of the passports for pets scheme, but were unsuccessful on the grounds that that was only part of their business. For some fur farmers, that is their entire business. Compensation will help them to get out of the industry or to diversify into some other form of farming or trade.
For many people in this country, fur farming is an awful, unnecessary trade. However, those who undertake it are currently entitled to do so by law. They should therefore be reimbursed accordingly. I understand that even the Fur Breeders Association wants the law sooner rather than later, because the current uncertainty makes life hard for those who are left in the business.
I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill. It is said that the extent to which a country is civilised can by judged by its treatment of animals. In many ways, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Let us consider my part of the country. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently conducted a survey, which found that some people in the north-east of England treated animals disgracefully. I wish that we could stop all cruelty.
Tonight we have a duty to show an example and make it clear that animal cruelty cannot be condoned in any form, regardless of where it takes place. I am confident that hon. Members will support the Bill vigorously, and that it will not be long before we are back again to abolish another obscenity—fox hunting. We are a civilised country; I presume we are a civilised House. Let us prove that by walking through the Lobby together tonight and ending the awful, unnecessary trade of fur farming.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the fact that the Government have finally found a slot in their timetable to discuss the Bill. I introduced a measure to outlaw fur farming in the 1997 Session. It was vetoed by the Labour Whips, allegedly because it was badly drafted. However, they made no attempt to improve it.
We are considering an issue that affects few people in this country. Mink were first introduced to the United Kingdom by fur farmers in 1929. Forty years later, there were more than 600 farms. However, several high-profile campaigns and a clear change in the public mood meant that, by 1982, there were only 68 farms. Now there are only 13.
Public disquiet is not felt only by animal welfare "terrorists" as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, rather unwisely and unfortunately called them. The majority of the public—75 per cent. in the most recent MORI poll—believe that fur farming should be banned. We must take that view into account. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is the advisory body to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, condemned fur farming and refused to issue guidelines for the welfare of the animals.
Our debate is not about the fate of 13 individuals or fur farms. Thirteen is such a small number that the Treasury should be able to find sufficient compensation for those farmers. I hope that the Bill will provide for proper compensation. The farmers are currently undertaking a legal activity, which they will be unable to continue when the Bill is passed. They should therefore be compensated.
The debate is about when it is right to ban a legal activity. Parliament should be careful before taking such a step. We are considering when it should be right to impose such a ban. That gives rise to genuine philosophical divisions, not necessarily on party lines. The Minister made an interesting distinction, which I have not heard him make previously, between animals that are reared for food production and those that are reared for what he described as non-essential production. On that basis, the Government should introduce a Bill to ban fox hunting and other forms of hunting. If that is the Government's basis for outlawing fur farming, we must ask why they are not introducing a measure to ban hunting. If they want to be consistent, they should. They have not done so, but if they do, I imagine that those who run hunt kennels will be compensated. Our approach to such matters should be consistent.

Mr. Hunter: I, too, am fascinated by the Government's argument, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could widen his thoughts. Why should a distinction be drawn between what is essential and non-essential only in farming? For example, I am tempted to say that homosexuality is non-essential, so why do not the Government ban homosexuality?

Mr. Baker: The Bill does not have 28 clauses, so I shall sidestep that intervention, which takes us a long way from fur farming. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to deal with that point.
The genuine debate is about the extent to which animals have rights. People talk about animal rights or animal welfare, but they are not quite the same. Animals have rights and we, the human race, have to ensure that our behaviour does not remove their basic freedoms. I fully respect the fact that that is not the view of other hon. Members.

Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that rights are always and everywhere the converse of obligations?

Mr. Baker: I think that I would, if I fully understood the legal term that the hon. Gentleman uses, but rights apply to those who are in charge of a situation and to those who are subject to it. Therefore, our role—and subsequently that of the courts—is to balance that. If we accept that animals are not the same as agricultural goods, we have to deal with them differently.
Animals were defined as agricultural goods in the treaty of Rome, but that definition was subsequently changed so that they are now classed as sentient beings. I am very glad about that change, which was the result of pressure from a range of people, including members of my party. Animals should not be regarded in the same way as potatoes, so it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested that animals are possessions. That is out of line with EU definitions.
We should recognise that animals can feel and that they suffer if certain basic requirements are not met. They are not the same as inanimate possessions, so we are in different territory, which is why it is right to consider banning activities that are detrimental to animals and why I favour a ban, even though it is not the natural Liberal inclination to ban things. This is a difficult conundrum, but it is clear that such a ban is justified.
I have mentioned public perception. The latest poll shows that, as well as 75 per cent. of British people thinking that fur farming should be banned, only 4 per cent. ever wear fur and 85 per cent. think that the trapping of animals for fur should be banned. We should take account of public opinion, and it is clearly on one side of the argument.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made some interesting points on the legal position and I hope that the Minister will reply to those genuine questions.

Mr. Nicholls: The polls show that between 65 and 80 per cent. of the British public want capital punishment to be reintroduced. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Mr. Baker: I agree that Parliament must always give weight to public opinion; it is not the determining factor, but it must be taken into account when decisions are taken in the House.
I understand that Britain is not alone in introducing such legislation. Switzerland effectively ended fur farming in 1978, bar allowing animals such as mink and fox to be kept only under zoo conditions. In 1998, the Netherlands began a 10-year phase-out of fox and chinchilla farming. The last mink farm in Austria closed following a ban in 1998. If that is the case in the Netherlands and Austria, I should be interested to know—I hope that the Minister will tell us—whether the bans in those countries have been challenged by other member states. According to the Conservatives, there is a plethora of objections to the United Kingdom proposal, so it is odd that we have heard nothing about the situation in the Netherlands and Austria, where bans have already been introduced.
There is slight inconsistency in the Conservatives' approach to the EU—there generally is—in that they suggest that other EU countries are clamouring to register objections to the Bill, presumably because they want our fur farms to continue. However, they also said that the Bill will provide a wonderful opportunity to take our business, which is a slightly odd juxtaposition of arguments.

Mr. Gray: It may be worth clarifying the precise position of foreign countries. The hon. Gentleman may not have realised that Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, so it does not come into the argument. No other European country has banned mink farming. The only exception is the Netherlands, which has banned fox fur farming. A number of provinces in Austria and Germany have banned mink farming, but I think that I am right in saying that no country has banned it outright.

Mr. Baker: I have explained the advice that I have been given, and I shall wait for the Minister to give us his version of events. Even if provinces of Austria and Germany have banned mink farming, they are subject to

the same EU rules as the country as a whole, so that is a red herring. Fox and chinchilla farming are covered by the Bill, so that is also a red herring. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I mentioned the philosophical dimension to this issue, which is perhaps the most important, but there is also an animal welfare aspect. That is why interest in this matter has built up over the years. It is accepted by both sides that mink are wild animals and should not be kept in cages. No one has defended that, but perhaps someone will do so tonight. They are solitary animals and should not be kept in groups. They defend their territories through patrolling, scent marking and aggression, and unfamiliar adults put in the same cages have exhibited that aggression.
In the wild, mink reside in a large territory and have a larger range in which to hunt: it can be up to 22 acres. The best animal welfare conditions in our mink farms have not provided solitary mink with 22 acres each, or anywhere near that. They have much less territory, so their natural behavioural patterns have been severely curtailed by farming.
Mink are semi-aquatic and need water in which to swim, as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said. Studies show that they spend much of their time in or close to water, and they often hunt and play in water. They have semi-webbed feet, which shows that as they have evolved they have spent a significant amount of time in water. They have no opportunity to swim in fur farms, so that environment is hardly ideal for their welfare.
By all means let hon. Members have the philosophical debate, but the welfare conditions in which mink are kept are clearly out of line with their requirements, and it is difficult to see how even the most conscientious mink farmer in the country could change them to make them satisfactory. That is probably one of the thoughts underlying the legislation.
Other aspects of fur farming must be considered, including the strains of mink. Captive mink can display a wide variety of pelt colours, including rarer colours that reach a premium price. The colours are controlled by a sequence of 18 genes that can be manipulated by selective breeding. It is possible that financial pressure on mink farmers has led them to produce rare colours. Breeding has concentrated on the colour of the coat and not on the other implications, including the health of the animal. The white coat is produced by a line of mink who are congenitally blind.
Killing methods also leave something to be desired. Animals are harvested without spoiling their pelt. The most widely used method of killing them is by gassing. Carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide is supposed to reduce the availability of oxygen to the animals, and lead to unconsciousness followed by death. Carbon dioxide is a colourless gas, but has an acrid smell. It is claimed that 100 per cent. carbon dioxide can kill mink in 19 seconds, but it is also shown that the mink react to its presence and suffer extreme stress by being forced into such an environment. Being semi-aquatic, mink can hold their breath for extended periods, so it is not a particularly quick death. Of the 15 mink farms in the United Kingdom in 1997, 14 used gassing—10 of them with carbon monoxide and four with carbon dioxide—and one used barbiturate injection.
When we consider animals, we must bear in mind their five freedoms and consider to what extent existing and proposed future practices conform to those accepted freedoms. They have been proposed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I think that they are generally accepted without dispute. They are freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, freedom from the need for appropriate comfort and shelter, the prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury, disease or infestation, freedom from fear, and freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour.
Those conditions should be met in any activity that we permit involving animals, and we should measure existing practices against them to see how far they are met. If they are not being met, we should raise standards. If they cannot be met, as I am not sure they can be in mink farming, we should ban mink farming. There is also a debate about whether it is right to use animals at all—or, as some might say, exploit them—if they are not being reared for food purposes. The Minister made that point at the outset.
The Liberal Democrats believe that fur farming and trapping animals for their fur cause unnecessary suffering, and we shall therefore support the Government if there is a vote.

Maria Eagle: I am particularly pleased to speak. As the Member in charge of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill presented in the last Session, I have more than a passing interest in the fate of this Bill, and am even more determined than usual to ensure that the Government get their business through as soon as possible.
I congratulate the Government on their wisdom and good sense—although I would say that, I suppose—in supporting the arguments put to them by me, and by a number of my Bill's supporters, at the end of the last Session, when it became clear that the Bill would not proceed beyond Report. It would have been easy for the Government then to think of it as a small measure, and to let it drop. I am grateful to them for picking it up and turning it into a Government Bill. Let me say in parenthesis that I am even more grateful that it will not be my job tonight to protect the legislation, and to ensure that enough Members turn up to vote it through.
I appreciate that it is never easy to persuade a Government that an essentially small measure such as this, affecting a limited number of people, merits their full attention and deserves to be included in their legislative programme—especially, I suspect, when it requires public expenditure. I am glad that my small Bill has survived those pitfalls, and I am certain that that is partly due to the eloquence and persistence of my hon. Friend the Minister in arguing against doubters who must have suggested that other measures should have a prior call on both parliamentary time and public spending.
I believe that the fact that the Bill is before us again constitutes a recognition of the essential argument of principle, and of the moral case that can be made that seemingly small Bills can be symbolic, important and worth pursuing. The argument that I think goes to the heart of the Bill is the animal welfare argument, namely

that it is unjustifiable, cruel and obnoxious in a civilised society such as we purport to have to allow wild animals to be kept in extremely small cages that prevent them from exhibiting their natural behaviour, to their evident distress, merely to collect the commercial value of their fur, which is something that we can all do without.
I believe that that practice is so obnoxious and repugnant that it should be stopped, and that it is appropriate for the law to be used to stop it. That is why I support this Bill, and why I presented my own Bill. I am sure that the strength of the argument helped my hon. Friend the Minister when, along with the rest of the Government, he claimed that the Bill should constitute a priority.

Mr. Nicholls: On Second Reading of her Bill, the hon. Lady said that she had not had time to visit a fur farm. I think we all accept that that is fair enough, but, given what she has said about animals' inevitably being in deep distress and therefore presumably being incapable of being handled, has she yet had an opportunity to visit a farm?

Maria Eagle: My aim was to visit more than one, but I could not visit more than one, partly because some farmers' advisers at the time were preventing access to the more notorious farms. However, I was able to visit one during the last Session, after Second Reading of my Bill, and found it extremely informative and interesting—although it did not change my basic view that it was not appropriate to keep wild animals in small cages.
It is surely right that one way in which we may judge the extent of our civilisation and the quality of our society is to look at how we treat our fellow sentient creatures. Do we respect them? Do we do our best to avoid treating them with unjustifiable cruelty, or do we view them merely as a commercial opportunity to be exploited for the fullest profit that may be extracted from them, to the exclusion of all but the most extreme considerations of humane treatment?
I, the Bill's supporters and the Government say that it should be the former. The British Fur Trade Association—which purports to represent the fur farmers, but which, in fact, does not—and many members of the Conservative party who oppose the Bill say that it should be the latter. They are willing to put the freedom of people cruelly to exploit wild animals above any obligation to show humanity and avoid excessive suffering, which keeping wild animals in small cages inevitably causes.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) that it is impossible to devise humane standards in intensive farming for the keeping of mink. In fact, the Farm Animal Welfare Council came to that conclusion 11 years ago when it refused to set standards that could be called humane for the keeping of mink.
The Bill extends to all fur-bearing creatures, but in practice it is mink farming that we are concerned about. The hon. Gentleman has already made some remarks on the basic facts about mink farming. There remain 13 mink farms in England—there are none in Scotland or in Wales—down from some 700 in the 1960s. The market for fur has declined in Britain by 99 per cent. since 1980. Despite what certain elements of the industry say, all the evidence is that the market is still declining.
Mink are not indigenous to Britain. They are essentially wild, which, indeed, is a key part of my argument for the Bill. If they were domesticated, it might be possible for


humane welfare standards to be introduced, but when the wild animal is solitary, territorial, ranges over territories of one to three miles and is semi-aquatic, it cannot be right for it to be kept in cages that are no longer than a person's forearm. The cages are no longer than a person's forearm because the mink retreat when anyone approaches the cages—they must be no longer than that, or they could not be fetched out of the cage.
It is a fallacy to argue, as it was argued on Second Reading of my Bill, that a species can be domesticated in only 70 years. A wild indigenous animal cannot become a domestic animal in only 70 years. Most of our domestic animals took hundreds or thousands of years to become domesticated.
The key argument that suggests that mink are still wild is that, when they are released—however that may happen—they immediately become feral. They are immediately able to cope, to live and to thrive in the surrounding countryside without any trouble. That is why there are feral populations of mink thriving around all but one of the remaining fur farms in England, destroying indigenous wildlife such as voles and certain birds. Therefore, it would not be possible to devise acceptable standards to keep such creatures in intensively farmed conditions. The animals are denied their natural behaviour and respond by showing clear signs of distress. They become apathetic and resort to performing repetitive, stereotyped movements. They mutilate themselves and others. They may even kill their young.
As I have said, 11 years ago, the Farm Animal Welfare Council made it clear that appropriate standards could not be set. That is still true today. In those circumstances, the only alternative that takes account of animal welfare considerations is a ban.
It is not only in this country that the debate is proceeding. Scotland has already decided to legislate. It took the decision in December last year and a Bill is expected. In Northern Ireland, action was being considered prior to the suspension of the Stormont institutions. One hopes that, if and when they are restored, consideration can be resumed.
Fur farming is effectively banned in Austria. It is not actually banned. The Austrian Government increased the standards of welfare expected to such a level that all the farmers went out of business. Where we have a small and struggling industry that could not possibly adapt and start to put in pools and three-mile territories for all its mink, rather than drive them out of business by increasing welfare standards, it is right and proper to compensate them for leaving the industry.
A Bill before the Italian Parliament offers aid to fur farmers to convert to other forms of agriculture. In Sweden, the agriculture minister has signalled her intention to ban mink and chinchilla farming. Fox farming has already been banned. In the Netherlands, where there are many fur farms, fox farming is being phased out. The Dutch Parliament has voted to ban mink farming. The debate is going on throughout Europe. We can give a lead by taking the decision and supporting the Bill tonight.
My Bill last year did not simply facilitate a debate about the issues of principle. It promoted negotiation between the fur farmers and the Government that has resulted in agreements in several areas.
Private Members' Bills, as anyone who has had the fortunate experience of coming high in the ballot will tell the House, always require consensus to proceed. That is

probably the biggest lesson that one learns as a Member in charge of a Bill with sufficient priority. I spent at least as much time in the previous Session trying to broker an agreement between the Government and the fur farmers as I spent trying to overcome the hurdles that were placed in the path of my Bill to get it through its parliamentary stages.
The Government Bill as currently drafted reflects a number of agreements between the Government and the fur farmers on time scales and principles of compensation, for example. As far as I am aware—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—those agreements still stand. As a result of those, the fur farmers themselves are content for the Bill to proceed. So is the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, which represents all the fur farmers that remain in the industry. So is the National Farmers Union, which does not oppose progress of the Bill. It represents some of the fur farmers who remain in business.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who has now left the Chamber, also asserted that the NFU was not opposed to the legislation. That is not quite correct. The letter says:
It has been asserted incorrectly that the NFU supports this legislation. On the contrary you will appreciate…that we strongly dislike the principle of introducing a…ban.

Maria Eagle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the letter with him. I know from my discussions with the fur farmers, and the NFU represents them, that they do not oppose the progress of the legislation. That is what I have been told by fur farmers, who presumably give their instructions to the NFU because it represents them. Similarly, the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, which represents all the remaining fur farmers, has made it clear that it wants the Bill to proceed.
The British Fur Trade Association, which is sometimes taken as representing fur farmers, is vocally opposed to the Bill and becomes more strident as time goes on and the closer the Bill gets to the statute book. However, it no longer represents any of the fur farmers. That is because every one of them, I am told, resigned from the association after they formed the view last year that it did not have their interests at heart, so its views should not be said to reflect the wishes of the farmers; they simply do not.
I wish the Bill to proceed as speedily as possible because, since last year, conditions in the industry have deteriorated. The price of fur fell by 31 per cent. at the Copenhagen auctions last year. Another fur farmer is being subjected to a private prosecution in the English courts for cruelty. Last year, one of the farmers was found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty and fined £5,000, with costs of £15,000, yet he still farms mink.
Despite claims to the contrary, in the past year, one of the only remaining fur retailers in London has closed and one of the very few remaining fur processors is in liquidation. The industry is dying. We should help it on its way. The sooner the Bill is enacted, the better. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I have listened to the debate so far, just as I have listened to the wider debate on fur farming, with growing incredulity. No one,


let alone the Government this evening, or the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), has yet convincingly complained why it is wrong to farm animals for their fur, but acceptable to farm them for their meat. I think the reason why we have not yet heard that convincing explanation is that there is none. There is no moral distinction whatsoever; the practices are essentially the same. On that most fundamental of all points, attempts to justify the Bill fail.
We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) intervene on the Minister. Opposition Members, at least, understood the Minister to say that the Bill's justification included the fact that meat farming supplied a majority demand, whereas fur farming supplied only a minority demand—

Mr. Morley: No.

Mr. Hunter: The Minister later corrected that and said that, contrary to our understanding, he had in fact said that the Justification for criminalising included the fact that fur farming was non-essential. If I have incorrectly reported his comments, I shall give way.

Mr. Morley: No; in his latter comments, the hon. Gentleman has made the position clear. I should like, however, to make the point absolutely clear. As tomorrow's Hansard will reveal, when I mentioned minorities, I was referring to vegetarians.

Mr. Hunter: I did not catch the Minister's last word, but I believe that he is sticking with his belief that there is some justification in criminalising an activity because it is non-essential. Such a position is mind-boggling.
The simple truth is that there are no scientific or welfare grounds for criminalising fur farming. Fur farming is highly regulated. Fur farmers are bound by regulation. As with all animal husbandry, regulations can be tightened and made more demanding if there are sound reasons for so doing. Most significantly, in this case, the industry readily and willingly agrees with that. If changes are needed, the way to proceed is through tightening or making more demanding regulations.
As we have heard, last year, the Government supported the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Garston, which sought to criminalise fur farming on spurious animal welfare grounds. I played a small part in opposing the passage of that Bill, and I am glad that I did. The animal welfare-based argument made last year in support of criminalisation was fundamentally and inherently flawed, as is the Government's argument this year.
Both nationally and as a European Union member state, our approach to animal welfare is well established. Acceptable standards of animal husbandry are established in both primary and secondary legislation—by statute, order or regulation. When it comes to the welfare of pigs, for example, we do not criminalise; we introduce legislation that bans tethering. When there is outcry about the export of live animals, we do not criminalise; we improve standards of transport and encourage other countries to do the same. That is the agreeable and sensible approach.
Today, the Government and the hon. Member for Garston have yet again totally failed to explain convincingly why the criteria used systematically in regulating every other aspect of animal husbandry cannot be applied to fur farming. The proposed ban on United Kingdom fur farming will eliminate a sector of agriculture that is not only legitimate and responsible, but highly regulated. If objective, properly researched scientific analysis concludes that welfare standards should be more demanding, that is the way forward. The industry agrees with that and will comply.
The European Union farmers federation, the EU farm co-operatives federation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, several other organisations and individuals have demonstrated that criminalisation is very probably contrary to EU law. The Commission's own Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Welfare is drafting a report on welfare, preparatory to producing a directive providing for the future of fur farming. The Government themselves fully supported the June 1999 Council of Europe recommendation on the keeping of farmed fur animals.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, it may very well be that the Bill breaches the European convention on human rights, despite the Bill's declaimer—which I suspect, and hope, will be contested in the courts. It will be argued that the Bill is contrary to Council directive 98/58, on the protection of animals kept for farm purposes, and to articles 28 and 29 EC—formerly articles 30 and 34—which rule on freedom of movement.
The Bill is little other than an expression of prejudice and intolerance. It is an unjustified and extreme measure. Among other things, it establishes a potentially dangerous precedent for criminalising other farming activities for no good reason. The Government's justification of "public morality" is a truly terrifying concept, and I wonder whether Labour Members have really thought it through. I suspect that some of them may not have done so.
The Bill justifies the persecution of minorities and minority interests to satisfy a prejudice of the majority, thereby taking political correctness to terrifying limits. That the Government should decide what is publicly moral, pronounce what is morally acceptable or unacceptable, and criminalise accordingly is truly terrifying. It offends every liberal instinct and principle and undermines the concept and practice of individual liberty. It is a repugnant denial of freedom.
For the Government to criminalise on the basis of public morality is highly dangerous. It echoes the ugly intolerance of Calvinist theocracies, and—for a fictional parallel—it has undertones of Orwellian thought-police. It is also strikingly inconsistent with the position that the Government adopt on so-called moral issues—on which they seek to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. The Government have become ostentatiously permissive in matters of personal and private morality. In this Bill, however, morality is reduced to fashionable posturing. Where is the morality in destroying the livelihood of a small group of hard-working, successful farmers operating in a viable, unsubsidised and well-regulated sector? We wait in vain for a credible answer to that question.
As other Opposition Members have already said, what is happening is that the Government are bowing to an animal rights lobby—which, shortly before the previous


general election, in the form of the political animal lobby, donated £1 million or thereabouts to Labour party funds. As we learned from the Ecclestone and Formula One saga, we have now moved firmly into the era of cash for legislation.
I have no particular constituency interest in any aspect of the fur trade, and I certainly have no personal interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in it. I happen to believe that the Bill is an ugly, dreadful measure. By all objective criteria of judgment, it is at fault and it fails. It is a vile expression of hypocrisy, intolerance and prejudice, and we should have nothing to do with it.

Angela Smith: I shall not speak for long. I feel as though I have been here before, having spoken on Second Reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) some time ago. That was also an excellent Bill, which had the overwhelming support of Members of Parliament and should have become law.
I am particularly pleased to speak again tonight because this is a Government Bill, which fulfils a long-standing Labour party commitment to animal welfare. The Bill was a Labour pre-election pledge and I hope that it will send a message to all those who campaign on animal welfare issues that there is a point in engaging in political processes, lobbying Members of Parliament and making representations to the Government, because that is what brings about change. That success brings great rewards. The comments of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) from the Conservative Front Bench about animal rights protesters and terrorists did him no credit. We should encourage people who protest to make their point through the democratic process. That is what is happening tonight.
The reappearance of the Bill tonight also shows that Labour Members will not be diverted or put off by the nonsense that we saw in the House on 19 January. I would be ruled out of order if I suggested that anyone had been filibustering on that occasion. We had riveting debates for hours and hours, which included discussion on the meaning of the word "and". We will not be put off and we will come back time and again to ensure that we have proper welfare standards and meet our responsibilities to wildlife.
The Bill is also a tribute to the attitude to animal welfare of Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In a busy parliamentary Session, it sends the message that the Government have listened to those who want fur farming to be banned. Even though it is a small measure that will not change the world overnight, it is an important step forward. Fur farming is cruel, outdated, unnecessary and an incredibly unfashionable way to service the fashion industry. It should be banned.
We all have our reasons for reaching that conclusion. My main concern is animal welfare. I am concerned about the way in which mink are farmed. It is an insult to farmers who are genuinely concerned with animal welfare to describe the way in which mink have been kept as farming. When we consider the behavioural characteristics of mink, it is difficult to see how the conditions in mink farms could be less appropriate. With the best will in the world, it is not possible to replicate the conditions that mink need to ensure that they are treated humanely.
In the wild, mink swim for up to 60 per cent. of their waking time. They hunt live quarry, they climb, they dive, they travel between two and five dens, sometimes as much as 2 km apart. In fur farms, they are kept in rows of small wire cages approximately the size of the Dispatch Box in front of us. In those conditions, they cannot replicate any natural behaviour.
In those wire cages, mink spend a quarter of their waking hours performing endless, repetitive motions. They mutilate themselves with pelt and tail biting. They cannibalise each other. Mortality among the young mink—the kits—is high. They carry out what is known as sham feeding, including rising up and head circling. In the words of leading mink expert Dr. Nigel Dunstone, they are confined to a life of "sedentary torture". I object to the keeping of wild animals in small, barren cages.
A University of Cambridge study that examined the social behaviour of mink said that if mink farming were to continue, a radical rethink on housing would be needed. As I said on Second Reading of the earlier private Member's Bill, the conditions prevalent in mink farming would not be allowed in a zoo, where they would be under public scrutiny. I find it incredible that Conservative Members defend those conditions, but suggest that we could pass legislation to improve them. They are suggesting that mink farms should be forced to make such enormous investment that they would be put out of business. The Bill is honest and straightforward in allowing compensation. The aim is not to ban mink farming by the back door. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) talked about morality. We should be proud of the honesty of the Bill.
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 specifies that mink should be
provided with space and furniture sufficient to allow such exercise as is needed for the welfare of the particular species.
Where in a fur farm do we ever see items such as nesting boxes, pools or branchwork to aid natural behaviour? In a natural habitat, mink would have at least a 40 sq m pool. Where do we see that in a fur farm? Where do we see natural soil or sand and gravel? Where do we see the hollow logs and rocks that would at least be an attempt to recreate a natural environment? If those basic minimum requirements were provided, it would not be economic to breed mink for their fur and the industry would collapse. Is that what Conservative Members are arguing for?
I have never been described as a fashion victim. Dedicated followers of fashion do not need animals to suffer for their style. The only fashion victim in this case is the mink.
Given the average age of Members of Parliament, I suspect that we have a few Doris Day fans in the Chamber.

Mr. Eric Forth: Yes.

Angela Smith: The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that Doris Day has said how embarrassed she is when she looks back at her films to see how often she wore fur. She now campaigns against the breeding of animals for fur. I hope that that does not spoil the right hon. Gentleman's fantasies.
The Bill will ban fur farming—not just the keeping of mink, but the possibility of a return to arctic fox fur farming. It is a measure whose time has well and truly


come. It has been delayed for far too long, during which time more mink have suffered and been killed as a result of the actions of the House. This a modern, compassionate move that will be warmly welcomed across the country. It will have the support of the majority of Members of Parliament and of people outside the House.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister's speech deserves a wider audience. Let me save him at once from any embarrassment by saying that I did not mean that as a compliment. When I asked him to explain the moral distinction between farming for fur and farming for meat, bearing in mind that neither was essential to sustain life, he said, in effect—we will not have an argument about this, because Hansard will show what the Minister said and he will have to live with it—that the eating of meat was a majority habit, whereas the wearing of fur was a minority habit. Anybody with even the cursory knowledge of history that one might expect of a Labour Member of Parliament knows that parliamentary democracy developed in this country not by extinguishing minority rights, but by protecting them.
In contrast, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) made a much better speech. I agree with her approach, although I disagree with some of her conclusions. The Bill is an animal welfare measure or it is nothing. If mink cannot be farmed humanely, that is the end of it, because the wearing of fur is not essential. In the same way, if animals raised for meat could not be farmed humanely, that would be the end of it.
Had the Government argued that there was nothing wrong per se with the farming of mink, any more than there is anything wrong per se with the farming of animals for meat, but that they wanted standards greatly improved, we could have understood. That would have enabled us to look at the issues in more detail. We hear stories about how mink are in deep distress when they are being farmed. Like the hon. Lady, I took the trouble to go to a mink farm. I deliberately went to the best one that I could find, because I wanted to see what could be achieved when the best was being adhered to. I saw animals that could be handled and were not in deep distress. They were no worse to handle than a ferret. They appeared to be content with their captivity. The argument that an animal cannot be domesticated in 70 generations is supported by the fact that when they go back to the wild, they adapt, but so will an ordinary domestic cat if it is entire when it goes back to the wild.
We need to get into the detail of that. If the Government had examined the issue and decided that higher standards were necessary, even if those standards put fur farmers out of business, I would have said "So be it". If humane conditions cannot be achieved, the practice should stop.
I really do wonder when I hear people talk about the fact that prosecutions take place and say that that is justification for abolishing the industry. The point has already been made that the convictions under the present legislation show that it is up to the job. If we need enhanced legislation, let us have it, but that is not the argument that has been made.
The Bill will have another practical consequence. At the moment, when Ministers go to meetings in Europe they can talk about the conditions in which mink farming

takes place in the EU. They have a contribution to make. If Ministers simply say that we have abandoned mink farming, what standing will they have in the EU to discuss the subject? We should aim for higher standards, here and abroad.
The real motivation behind the Bill has been revealed time and again this evening—although not by the hon. Member for Garston, because she learned the lessons of her first attempt—and just a moment ago, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) offered us her views on fashion to justify banning a legal activity. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) had the naive gall to say that he found the wearing of fur pretentious. I find a group of new Labour glitterati wearing ill-fitting but expensive Armani suits unbelievably pretentious, but that is no reason for abolishing them. When the argument is reduced to that level, it is easier to understand the motivation.
The Bill is an animal welfare measure. We should have been listening tonight to an argument that justified the Bill because mink cannot be farmed humanely in any way. Instead, we have heard a load of guff about some convictions that, it is claimed, have contaminated the whole industry. Every now and again, the seeping class prejudice leaks out from Labour Members to try to justify this thoroughly illiberal measure. If the cause of animal welfare had to depend on that analysis, God help the animal kingdom, because this Government will not.

Mr. James Gray: I hold no candle for the fur farming industry. There is none in my constituency, my wife owns no fur and, indeed, I own no fur, although I wish that I was rich enough to do so. I would happily do so if I could afford it. However, I am concerned by the fundamental illogicality of the Bill and the worrying principle that lies behind it.
I would understand it—although I would disagree—if the Government said that they believed the wearing, trading, farming and production of fur was immoral, wicked and distasteful, and that they intended to ban it. That would be a logical position, and indeed that is what many animal welfare activists would like the Government to do. The activists think that the wearing of fur is disgraceful and they are prepared to slash people's fur coats to prove it. They want the selling and farming of fur to be banned. That is a logical position, but not one with which I agree.
It would be equally logical to argue that the standards of welfare on fur farms should be raised to an acceptable level. If that cannot be done, as Labour Members have argued, the industry will disappear, not only here but in all those countries with which we have trade relations. However, there are 1,200 mink farms in the USA, which operate in the same way as ours. The US industry has 1,400 retailers, which turn over £1.5 billion a year. The United Kingdom trades 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the world's fur in London. It would be logical if the Government were trying to ban the trade, but they do not propose to do so. It will be legal for me to buy mink pelts in Calais and to sell them to retailers in this country and abroad. That is the first fundamental illogicality in the Bill.
The second was highlighted by the case of a farmer in Austria. He took the compensation offered by the Austrian Government for closing down his farm, and moved it


some two miles down the road to the Czech Republic. He still uses the same cages, animal welfare methods and production method as before. In the same way, the effect of the Bill will be to export the animal welfare considerations about which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) and others are so concerned. We will have high standards of animal welfare here, but what about the situation in Mongolia, which I visited recently with the Inter-Parliamentary Union? That is where most of the fur comes from. What about the situation in Russia, China, the US, France, Germany and Ireland?

Maria Eagle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that we legislate for this country, not for Russia and Mongolia.

Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady is right, and I said the same thing when we legislated on pig stalls and tethers. We have put our pig industry out of business, but in Calais they use the methods that we are banned from using and export pork to this country. That is what will happen under this Bill.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gray: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he strolled into the Chamber at a late hour, presumably to try to get a mention in his local paper. We will export to Calais the animal welfare controls that we should have here. We should argue for high animal welfare standards for mink farms before the world, but just to ban fur farming here is as logical as the socialist borough of Islington going to some length to ban fox hunting in the borough. There has been no fox hunting in Islington for 300 years, but the socialists on the council wished to ban it for politically correct reasons. The Bill is equally politically correct.
The Bill will not improve the lives of mink anywhere in the world. It will not improve animal welfare standards at all. It will put a few people out of business, but it will not reduce the amount of mink sold in the world. I would not mind if there were no mink farms in the UK, but the Bill will not do what Labour Members want it to do. All they are interested in is the opportunity for some politically correct posturing. They can say, "We are brave animal welfare activists and we are going to ban 13 unfortunate farmers from making a living." However, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of fur will still be traded in London. Fur will still be worn here. We will still be able to buy fur from Mr. A1 Fayed in Harrods. It will still be legal for hon. Members to wear fur coats in the Chamber, if they wish to do so.
All the Bill will do is ban the farming of fur, but it will still go on 22 miles across the channel and everywhere else in the world. That is illogical and illiberal. We are taking a politically correct, holier-than-thou stance. I mentioned earlier the issue of cruelty to pet dogs, but the hon. Member for City of Durham, who is no longer in his place, misunderstood my point. Some people are cruel to their pet dogs, and it is important that we have legislation to prevent that and under which we can prosecute the perpetrators. However, we do not say that because some people are cruel to their pet dogs we will

ban the ownership of pet dogs. The Bill is the equivalent of that, and I shall seek to oppose it in the Lobby this evening.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I apologise for leaving the debate shortly after the Minister began his speech, but I had to attend a Select Committee. I am sorry that I missed some of the arguments, but I remember the debate on the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). We have not moved on from the extraordinary illogicality at the heart of the Bill.
No one has to kill an animal for anything. None of us has to eat meat to survive, because we could survive on grains and vegetables. Indeed, we would save much agricultural activity, because it takes seven kilos of grain to produce one kilo of beef. We eat meat because we enjoy it. It is as simple as that. If people enjoy wearing fur, as another by-product of animals, I do not see any logic in differentiating between that and eating meat.
A raft of legislation has been passed in connection with the industry—for example, the Mink (Keeping) Order 1992, the Mink (Keeping) Regulation 1975, the Mink (Keeping) (Amendment) Regulation 1997, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulation 1995, the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, and the EU directive on farm animal welfare.
The Minister is the man responsible for implementing UK and EU directives on animal welfare. If there has been cruelty in mink farms, or if high crimes and misdemeanours have been carried out in such farms, that is his responsibility but, as in earlier debates, he has completely failed to answer my simple question.
I said earlier that, under the raft of existing regulation, it is possible to rear rabbits to maturity and that, under the Bill, a rabbit could still be kept in a cage and legally killed for its meat. However, the Minister has never explained why its owner would be fined £20,000 if the rabbit in the adjacent cage were killed for its fur.
In fact, there is no real need to kill either rabbit. We do not need the protein from rabbit meat, or the warmth from rabbit fur, as both commodities can be found elsewhere. Keeping rabbits is not a necessity but if it is legal to keep them for one purpose, should it not be legal to keep them for another?
Assertions have been made about cruelty. I have spoken to people from Scandinavia who are involved in the business, and the Dutch Government have undertaken research into the matter. I refute what the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) said about cruelty. Dr. Georgia Mason of Oxford university's zoology department has said that, compared with other intensive farming practices, mink farming is the best example and gives the least cause for concern.
There is no logic to the Bill, but it is even more dotty that, on a day when we could have had a proper debate today about Sierra Leone, where British soldiers are engaged in a serious expedition to a troubled part of the world, the House should be discussing 13 fur farms, owned by 11 fur farmers. There are 6,000 fur farms in the EU, including the UK. Britain produced only 160,000 skins last year, compared with global output of 25 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out one of the nonsenses of the Bill. He described how, when a farm in Austria was closed, the owner moved the cages a few miles down the road to where he lived and in fact doubled the size of his operation. It is extraordinary that the Government should devote this precious parliamentary time to a measure that remains thoroughly unsatisfactory.
I managed to catch some of the opening remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I agree with him that the Bill sets an appalling and dangerous precedent, in that the whims of an urban Government can decide how people can make a living in the countryside.
Another dangerous precedent is that the compensation remains unclear. The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill suggest a figure of £400,000, but I regard that as mythical. In the Austrian case that I described earlier, the Austrian Government had to pay about £400 per pelt to the man whose business was closed down. The Government can expect many millions of pounds to be claimed in compensation as a result of the Bill.
Today, I have spoken to Torben Nielsen, the managing director of the Copenhagen Fur Centre, and to Wim Verhagen, the chairman of the European Furbreeders Association. They are convinced that the Bill is in clear breach of European regulation 827/68, which covers the common organisation of the market in certain products listed in annexe II of the European treaty. They also consider it to be in breach of European Council directive 98/58, concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. They think that it breaches the general EU law principles of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or business. Most importantly, they regard it as being in breach of articles 28 and 29 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.
The industry is a significant one in Europe—for example, it makes up 4 per cent. of Denmark's gross domestic product—and those who oppose the Bill are determined to take it right through the European courts. The cost to the British taxpayer will be enormous.
So what is the Bill all about? What lies behind its introduction now? The Labour party took £1 million off the International Fund for Animal Welfare before the election. There are clear signs that the Government remain in cahoots with animal rights activists.
The trade has been trying to find out when national fur day would be held. It was held yesterday, in fact—interestingly, the day before this Second Reading debate. That information has been available on the internet site of the animal rights activists for two months. That simple fact explains why we are debating this extraordinary measure tonight.
The Bill will not increase the sum of mink happiness, as mink farming will simply move abroad. It will entail considerable expense, as the British taxpayer funds compensation claims and huge legal fees. The mink farmers are sure that they will win their case, and so even larger amounts in compensation may have to be paid.
The Bill is thoroughly flawed. It sets the unhappy precedent that farming enterprises should be closed down for so-called moral reasons, even though no moral case

can be made. Finally, the compensation provisions are a disgrace: it is not clear how people will be compensated, and the amounts proposed are inadequate.
The head of the European fur farmers' organisation has said that people should not be able to buy legislation, but that is what has happened with this Bill, which I oppose.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I shall be brief, but I begin by declaring an interest. I am a member of the National Farmers Union and of the Country Landowners Association, and I am also a consultant to the Countryside Alliance. In addition, one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Harrison, is a fur farmer.
The Minister has engaged in an extraordinary amount of ducking and weaving to get the Bill on the statute book. He said that his motive was predominantly one of public morality. However, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) made a good speech—

Mr. Stephen Pound: Right name, wrong constituency.

Mr. Atkinson: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon, of course I meant to refer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I disagreed with what she said, but at least she made her views clear. Every Labour Member who spoke in support of the Minister based their support on the animal welfare argument. I believe that the Minister cannot use that argument, as to do so would cause him to fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights. That is why he has used article 30 of the European convention referred to earlier, which deals with public morality, as his main justification for the Bill.
My hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) have dealt with that, and I shall not pursue it. However, I want to ask the Minister to give some details about compensation.
Why could not consultation and discussion have started before the Bill came before the House? It is common practice to have an outline of a scheme before a Bill reaches this stage. My constituent Mr. Harrison has been described as one farmer who would be happy to take the compensation package, as he has been harassed by animal rights protesters for years. There have been court cases and arrests, and armed guards at one stage had to be stand guard over his mink farm.
Mr. Harrison is happy to leave the industry, but he does not know whether he will receive a paltry few thousand pounds out of the £400,000 on offer, or whether he will leave on the terms enjoyed by the Austrian fur farmer about whom we have heard. The Austrian received a substantial payment and was able to open another farm a few miles away in the Czech Republic. If fur farmers were to be compensated at the Austrian rate—based on the number of breeding females that they own—the Government would face a bill of £8 million or £9 million, compared with the £400,000 estimated in the Bill.
What happens if, as is inevitable, the Minister loses his case in the European Court of Justice? What happens if that court rules that the UK has acted unconstitutionally in this case? Will the fact that they have been put out of business illegally give fur farmers the right to seek further compensation?
Finally, it is a pity that the Minister will not be publishing the Government's legal advice. It is not always the case, but legal advice is sometimes placed in the Library. What will happen if the Minister loses that case? Will he resign?

Mr. Moss: We have had a good debate on the issue, although we have covered much of the ground that was covered before in the Standing Committee considering the previous private Member's Bill. Without question, the argument has been won on this side of the House.
The Minister sought to justify the Bill on the basis of public morality, but I do not remember one other person supporting him on that basis. Most Labour Members returned to the old arguments of animal welfare. There is no question but that Conservative Members would support animal welfare provisions to improve the lot of mink on mink farms. The Government are not bringing forward legislation to provide for that, however—no, they are going the whole hog and imposing a ban.
As I said in my opening remarks, the proposed ban has no roots, that we can see, in European legislation. It was wrong for some hon. Members to refer to other countries having introduced a ban. Switzerland is not a European Union member, so that is irrelevant. Austria may have implemented the ban before it became a member and regional bans are not the same as a national ban.
The ban must have proper legal underpinning. We have already had submissions from other European Union countries that are going to take the matter to the highest court in Europe. It is likely, based on the legal advice that I and other right hon. and hon. Members have received, that the Government will find themselves with egg on their face. They will be forced on to retreat because they have not done their homework on the legal process.

Mr. Morley: Not true.

Mr. Moss: The Minister says "Not true" from a sedentary position, but he gave the House no justification of the legal basis for his public morality position. I submit that when this comes before the European Court of Justice, based on current EU legislation, this legislation will not reach the statute book. We will have a free vote on the Bill this evening, but our opposition to the Government is deeply felt, and we want the Minister to justify his stance in Committee.

Mr. Morley: Some good points have been made in the debate, as well as some poor ones. I will address the more reasonable questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members on detailed aspects of the Bill.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke about compatibility with European Union law. I repeat that the Government are confident that the Bill is compatible with EU law, and we have taken the appropriate advice on that. The hon. Gentleman was quoting from EU law that is not relevant to this legal point. We are talking about morality, but he was talking about EU law on welfare. The Bill deals not with animal welfare standards but the wider question of public morality. Directive 98/58/EC, which he quoted, is about welfare standards, and the legal opinion quoted is

therefore not relevant to the Bill. On proportionality, if the aim is to stop the breeding of animals for fur, no less proportionate response could be introduced. I cannot see any element of discrimination on the ground of nationality in the way in which this is being applied as a United Kingdom measure.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said that a number of countries had taken action on fur farming. In answer to his question, I am not aware of any challenge taken against those countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) spoke eloquently on a range of aspects in relation to fur farming. She argued her case very well, as did my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). He made a sophisticated speech and dealt well with interventions—indeed, his rebuffs were devastating.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) put forward some quite strange arguments. If I understood him correctly, he was arguing that the Government cannot get involved in any issue of morality, and should have no role in introducing legislation on matters of morality. I do not know how that attitude squares with issues such as paedophiles and pornography. They are issues of morality on which the Government have a view in relation to protecting public morality and responding to the views of the people who put them forward. That argument was entirely spurious and should be rejected.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, spoke about visiting fur farms. Well documented research on fur farms demonstrates that welfare issues need to be dealt with. The Government are arguing for a ban on the basis of public morality, but in my opening remarks I outlined a range of issues that are a part of public morality, including welfare, the effect on the environment and the cost of dealing with escapes. Many other issues are part of the wider issue of public morality, which is the overriding argument for banning fur farming.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made a number of perfectly reasonable points on behalf of his constituent. I acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House represent fur farmers. We must address the question of compensation, and how it will apply. During the process of my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill, we discussed these issues with the National Farmers Union and with individual Members of Parliament who contacted me to talk about their constituents, which is a proper democratic function of the House. I argued in Committee that we ought to take into account the issues raised in amendments. My hon. Friend worked very hard to bring together the different sides on this matter.
The Government are committed to bringing forward the Bill; it was outlined as a pre-election pledge on animal welfare. We have delivered on the majority of our pledges. Our policies on fur farming were published long before the donation from the political animal lobby was given. The political animal lobby decided that it would donate to the Labour party because it believed that the Labour party had the best policies on animal welfare and was committed to implementing them. The lobby was quite right in that respect.
As part of discussions that my hon. Friend had with the NFU, changes to the Bill were made in Committee. The hon. Member for Hexham, who served on the Committee,


will be aware of that. In the course of that Bill's progress, I gave some clarification on the details of compensation and of the issues that we would take into account such as the costs of demolition and legal advice that fur farmers may have to take. Every assurance that I gave on behalf of the Government to the NFU through the offices of my hon. Friend has been incorporated in the Bill. I have stuck to every assurance that I gave in Committee, even though this is now a Government Bill and we are not obliged to incorporate everything that was discussed in the Committee considering my hon. Friend's private Member's Bill. Nevertheless, we have stuck to our principles. Where we gave assurances, they have been written into this Bill.
I am a little disappointed in the NFU's response. I do not think that its representatives kept to the spirit of what they said to me in the course of those discussions. While it is certainly true that the NFU is not in favour of the Bill—I have never claimed that it was—it made it clear to me that because of the interests of its members, it is not opposed to the Bill progressing. Even in the brief quoted by hon. Members, which I have read, the NFU does not call for a vote against the Bill or say that it wants to stop the Bill.
Many of the fur farmers are having a difficult time financially. The Bill gives them an opportunity to exit from the industry with some compensation. A great many of them would depart anyway without that financial support. It seems hard-nosed of Opposition Members to imply that we should set standards that would bankrupt fur farms rather than dealing with them as reasonably as we are.

Dr. Peter Brand: Is it not in everyone's interest that the trade should cease as soon as possible because of the uncertainty and risks involved? Does the Minister intend that compensation may be made available before January 2003, or does he hope that a war of attrition will make constituents such as mine give up before it is available?

Mr. Morley: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. Any fur farmer who chooses to leave the business before the date on which the Bill is enacted will find compensation available as part of its second stage.
The hon. Member for Hexham asked why we had not begun consultation with the affected fur farmers about the details of the scheme, and the answer simply is that there cannot be detailed discussions on compensation before the statutory consultation period, which may substantially change the nature of the compensation.
The Bill is an enabling measure, putting in place powers to make the compensation scheme. Consultation will take place on the nature of the scheme and the income lost. It is difficult to specify great detail about compensation at this stage. Some wild claims have been made about the compensation required, and it would be wrong of the Government to paint ourselves into a corner before we have considered the implications and the way in which compensation would be calculated. As soon as the enabling powers have been enacted and the consultation period begun, we will arrange for accountants to talk with individual fur farmers about income and profits. Then we can consider the nature of the scheme.
I have no doubt that there is wide public support for a measure of this kind. Public morality comes into that, and we are taking account of the views of the public. We have consulted a wide range of professional and welfare organisations to ascertain their views. We received 88 responses, only two of which were in favour of retaining fur farming. All the others, some from organisations that represent many people, made it clear that the most appropriate way forward was a Bill banning fur farming. That is what we have done.
We have made our intentions clear. We have been questioned about the morality of our approach. Morality is important when it comes to the treatment of animals. I shall repeat our view on the morality of fur farming. Fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animal life should not be destroyed in the absence of a sufficient justification in terms of public benefit. Nor should animals be bred for such destruction in the absence of sufficient justification. That is the essence of our argument for applying morality to a Bill of this kind, and for justifying it under article 30 of the EU regulations. We are entirely entitled to do that, and the advice to the Government is that we are within our rights. We are confident that our measures are fully compatible with human rights legislation and the requirements of the single market.
Some Conservative Members have argued that the Government must justify the application of morality. I have done so. However, those Members should justify their argument that this is not an issue of morality. They should consider that animals are kept in intensive conditions, in cages. We know that there are issues of poor welfare. Some animals are being kept simply so that their skins can be removed from their backs to make clothes for which there are many alternatives.

Mr. Baker: Given the Minister's strong commitment to public morality, on which he has based this Bill, can he explain why the Government are not introducing a Bill to ban fox hunting?

Mr. Morley: That is a matter for my hon. Friends at the Home Office. The Government have, however, already given a commitment to investigate the matter, and the Prime Minister has given a commitment that hon. Members have a free vote. The question is how we take the issue forward, but that is a matter for the Home Office.

Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) compared the pretentious wearing of fur coats to the wearing of Armani suits by Labour party poseurs. Can the Minister tell us how many Armanis it takes to make a suit, and how they are killed?

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, although I have never heard of an Armani being skinned to make a suit.
We have heard a lot about morality, but where is the morality in Conservative Members arguing that the Government cannot introduce a Bill such as this because it would offend some people in other countries? Where is the morality in arguing that we cannot introduce a Bill because some people with a vested interest might take the Government to court? Where is the morality in treating animals in a way that simply is not needed in


modern society? Those are not the standards that people expect in the 21st century. The Bill is long overdue, it commands popular support and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Question agreed to.

Sitting suspended until Seven o'clock, there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business).

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)

As amended, further considered.

7 pm

Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave notice of my point of order earlier today. It relates back to previous points of order that I raised about the Bill's compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. On 24 January, I said that we should be advised of the compliance of private Bills with the Act, section 19 of which states that when the Government introduce a Bill, the Minister responsible must state on the Bill its compliance with the Act. Madam Speaker made it clear that that did not apply to private Bills.
During that debate, I asked how Members of the House could be advised on that legal matter of compliance with the Act and thus with the European convention on human rights. In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—one of the Bill's sponsors—argued that the sponsors had sought legal advice and were satisfied that the measure complied with the Act and with the ECHR. However, they have not published that legal opinion, so—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the Chair notice of his point of order. I am well aware of the point he makes. However, he too will be aware that the matter has already been well aired and that it is not one on which the Chair can rule this evening. We should now deal with the amendments that he has tabled.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is not much to add to that point of order.

Mr. McDonnell: I should like to clarify one point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During that previous debate, it was asserted that the non-intervention of the Attorney-General on the matter was evidence of the compliance of the measure with the Human Rights Act. I want to clarify that non-intervention—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now starting to do what I said that we could not do this evening. Those are matters for the debate, not for a ruling from the Chair. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would deal with his amendments.

Mr. McDonnell: May I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order. I want to move on to amendment No. 3.

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 10, leave out from 'there' to end of line 19.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 64, in page 2, line 12, leave out from 'director' to end of line 13 and insert 'or employee'.
No. 65, in page 2, leave out lines 14 to 16.
No. 79, in page 2, line 19, after '1890' insert—
'or a church, religious body, voluntary sector or community organisation which has registered as a charity under the Charities Act 1993'.
No. 80, in page 2, line 19, after '1890' insert—
'or trade union certificated under section one of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992'.
No. 26, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'relevant employee" means a person whose principal or only place of work on the qualifying date is ordinarily the hereditament in respect of which the entitlement to appoint a voter arises and who works for that qualifying body.'
No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28.
No. 34, in clause 3, page 2, line 42, after '£200' insert—
'and which has conducted a ballot of its relevant employees to determine the person to be appointed as a voter.'.
No. 37, in page 3, line 12, leave out from 'greater' to end of line and insert—
'number of employees of the qualifying body.'.
No. 16, in page 3, line 13, leave out from the beginning to 'the' in line 14 and insert—
'A qualifying body shall appoint as voters pursuant to subsection (1)(c) above'.
No. 17, in page 3, leave out lines 18 to 22.
No. 38, in page 3, line 20, after 'values', insert—
'the number of relevant employees.'
No. 40, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 30 and insert—
'conduct a ballot of all relevant employees to elect its voter or voters.'.
No. 48, in clause 5, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (5).
No. 51, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out 'appoint' and insert 'elect'.
No. 52, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected'.
No. 25, in page 6, leave out schedule 1.
No. 53, in schedule 1, page 6, line 2, leave out 'appoint' and insert 'elect'.
No. 54, in page 6, line 7, leave out from 'scale:' to end of line 24 and insert—


Number of Relevant Employees
Maximum Number of Persons whom that Body may Elect


Up to 1,000,
1


For every 1,000 over the first 1,000
1 for every thousand relevant employees


No. 56, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'rateable value' and insert 'number of relevant employees'.

Mr. McDonnell: Although the matter of human rights is one for debate, it cannot be debated under any of the amendments, so I simply point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter has been debated. If the hon. Gentleman does not intend to address his remarks directly to the amendments, I shall have to call him strictly to order.

Mr. McDonnell: I shall move on to the amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We return to this debate with some

amazement. Our argument thus far has been that the Bill is thoroughly undemocratic. The amendments have been tabled in an attempt to introduce some form of democratic legitimacy to the measure.
Although we are debating one group of amendments, it covers several separate principles, so I shall seek your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on more than one amendment in the group. The amendments have been grouped under the heading "Qualifying Bodies", but the individual amendments have different purposes, so I believe that we should have separate votes. The main thrust of all the amendments is to democratise the Bill. Although they are grouped, I shall seek leave later to divide the House on at least three sub-groups, and I shall now set out the arguments for that.
The amendments would ameliorate the Bill. In the previous debate, we urged compliance with some of the basic, democratic procedures of local government. The amendments would designate who can qualify to vote for a voter—who will be qualified to nominate a voter at future elections for the City of London.
Clause 3 currently proposes three groups. The first consists of people who are
in occupation…as owner or tenant.
That provision strikes at the core of the debate; it refers to physical occupation.
The second group refers to residents—as in any other local government or national election. We have just gone through a whole process of devolution; residence was a qualification in each measure that was introduced—for Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
However, through the amendments, we need to strike at the third category of residents, defined in subsection (c) as
a person appointed as a voter in writing by a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I could be described as a semi-permanent resident of the City of London and a tenant of the City of London's housing department. Has my hon. Friend received any representations from the Barbican Association on this aspect of the Bill and on his amendments? I live in the Barbican and other residents have mentioned the Bill in passing, but I should like to know whether the Barbican Association itself has been in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. McDonnell: That is an important point. I have received no representations from tenants or residents in the Barbican. However, the City of London corporation has undertaken a range of consultations, although the House has yet to receive a report. I should be happy to give way to any hon. Member who would like to make such a report. Several meetings have been held in different areas of the City, but I do not know whether one was held in the Barbican estate.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, under the measure, an unelected, unsupervised, unaccountable person—perhaps a director of a major corporation—could nominate who


should have voting rights within the City, and that such nomination would be at the whim and fancy of that unelected, unaccountable person?

Mr. McDonnell: As I go through the amendments that have been tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), my hon. Friend will see that they seek to deal with the potential of such abuse.
As I said, we have had debates on local government reform, and on devolution and the legislatures for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In all those cases, voting has been based on residential qualifications and in none of them was there the strange mechanism of a qualifying body based on the ownership of property. According to clause 2 the qualifying body is
a body corporate or an unincorporated body other than a partnership within the meaning of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890.
I shall return to that point, because it is a bizarre piece of drafting. What do the words
within the meaning of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890
mean? I checked and found that they are almost meaningless. Under section 1 of the 1890 Act, to which I shall refer in detail later, a partnership is a relationship between people, that seeks profit. Therefore, it is an anomaly that such partnerships are ruled out by the clause.
In effect, the problem with the Bill is that, although residents retain their right to vote and their votes are based on universal suffrage, those votes will be swamped by what is in effect the sale of votes to businesses and the votes based on property itself. This is the last area of political life in which votes can be bought in that way. As many know, we sought to reject that provision on Second Reading, and the Committee struggled with inadequate advice, so it sought more independent external advice. However, we are now left to press amendments designed to achieve two basic objectives.
First, the amendments would ensure that the business voter was physically present, or occupied, the premises in the City from which he or she, or the qualifying body, gains the qualification to vote. Secondly, if business votes are to be allocated, the qualification for those votes should be based not on property ownership, the value of the property or how much property a company or director owns, but on human beings—the employees who work for the company. That point is based on the assertion that the employees, or the workers, are the real generators of the City's wealth and that the City is their working environment. If anyone other than the residents should have a say in the City's management, it should be the employees. That is not a radical demand to make in this century.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful if you would consider allowing us to divide the House on three or four different amendments in the main group because each addresses a different principle relating to the qualifying bodies.

Mr. Martin Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman feel some surprise that, in the first year of a new century, a democratic assembly is debating the buying and selling of votes?

Mr. McDonnell: I was surprised when we debated that issue in the last century, too. Not only are we debating

such issues, but the Bill is being forced through the House on the payroll vote. If it were left to a free vote, we would not have this travesty before us.
7.15 pm
A number of principles are covered by this group of amendments on the qualifying bodies. Each of those principles merits the consideration of a separate vote. For that purpose, I have divided the main group of amendments into smaller groups. The first smaller group aims at stipulating the physical presence of the qualifying body. It is made up of amendments Nos. 3, 65, 5 and 48.
The second group argues that, when the votes are allocated, a qualifying body should qualify on the basis of its employees—that is, human beings—not on the basis of the property it owns. That group is made of amendments Nos. 64, 26, 34, 37, 16, 17, 38, 54 and 56. The third group demands that employees must determine who will vote on their behalf. It contains amendment No. 40 and consequential amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53.
The three groups that I have described strike at three distinct principles, and I argue for separate votes on that basis. The first group is about physical presence. A person's entitlement to vote should depend on the physical location of an individual within the geographical area in which the vote is to be cast and in which that vote will have its effect. That has been the basis of our democracy, for perhaps three centuries.
The second group is about qualification, and states that the quantity of votes should not be based on how much property is owned by an individual or company. If people do not live in the area, they should at least work in the area. The argument is that they, the employees, should have a stake—an argument that is almost new Labour.
My third group is about qualification. It argues that voters who gain a vote through a business connection should be elected by the employees of a firm or business. The votes of a firm should be cast following of a vote of its employees to determine whom they entrust to cast their votes and to fulfil that responsibility.
I have grouped the amendments in that way because they represent a sliding scale of democratic engagement. It would almost restore to the City corporation the traditions on which it was founded—workers coming together in the distinct areas where they live and work to govern those areas. The tradition is that those who work within the City's boundaries are stakeholders as much as, and as well as, the residents. Therefore, they should have a say in running the corporation and in the management of their area.
That is why I have tabled amendments on physical location and occupation, and those that would ensure that votes were based on employees. However, if the votes on those amendments fail, I would at least urge that we divide on whether the votes based on the property qualification should be exercised by voters who have been elected by the employees of a business that qualifies to vote. There is a logic to having separate votes on the amendments.
I suggest a fourth vote. It would be on the amendments that were tabled last week and which Madam Speaker accepted this morning. The fourth vote would guarantee that two further organisations that would qualify as qualifying bodies were included on the face of the Bill.


I draw attention to the amendments that argue that churches, voluntary organisations, community organisations and religious groups should be specified as qualifying bodies. It may be argued that they are unincorporated bodies, but I shall return to that point. I have sought legal and other advice, as the issue is not clear.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill, which seems to be fresh out of "Jurassic Park". Am I correct in saying that the City of London corporation is the health authority for the port of London? Would not it be right to include in the measure those who work on health for the port of London, including representatives of Unison and the dock workers?

Mr. McDonnell: The amendments would enable the employees of the City of London corporation and all the organisations that have a location in the City of London to have, if not a direct say, at least some say in who will cast their votes for corporation representatives. As my hon. Friend said, employees involved in all functions exercised by the corporation should be include in a vote.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) raised an interesting matter. Is not Bart's in the City? What rights do the 300 to 400 people working in that famous hospital have under the Bill?

Mr. McDonnell: That is an interesting question, as I am not sure whether Bart's qualifies as an incorporated body—which is one reason why clause 4 needs to be clarified.

Mr. Stephen Pound: On that note, there is surely no doubt that the vast verdant swathes of Hampstead heath and Epping forest that are in the City of London's iron fist are under the aegis of the incorporated body. Those unfortunate but honest artisans labouring in Epping forest and Hampstead heath have no democratic input into the terms and conditions of their service. How can that possibly be defended?

Mr. McDonnell: The amendments partly relate to that. Amendments were tabled that sought to bring Hampstead heath and Epping forest into the geographical area of the City of London, which would enable residents in those areas to vote. Those amendments were not selected for debate.
However, it can be argued that employees of the City corporation who are based outside the corporation, but work in such fields of activity, are located primarily in the City and could participate as employees under the amendments. If nothing else, we should at least agree, in a final vote, that the definition of bodies that qualify, as businesses do, for a vote in the City should include churches, religious organisations, voluntary organisations and community organisations.
It can be argued that the wording already allows for that. However, that is open to doubt and we must clarify the matter in the Bill. We should also vote on whether trade unions located in the City of London—in the sense

that they are operational there and represent members' interests there—should be recognised as a qualifying body, thus enabling them to elect someone who would vote on the composition of the City corporation.

Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend may not be aware that, before I came to this place, I was a journalist working on the daily paper Lloyd's List, as well as various left-wing publications such as Tribune, which my colleagues on the Front Bench know and love. Under the amendments, would the chapel of the National Union of Journalists have the right to elect voters?

Mr. McDonnell: There are two issues involved in that question, which is why I would like the details to be included in the Bill. First, does the organisation have a financial property base in the City of up to £200 rateable value? Secondly, is it a qualifying body as an incorporated or unincorporated body? The question is whether either of those factors is applicable.
In our discussion of the amendments, I want to demonstrate that the references to corporate and unincorporated bodies in the Bill are, in legal terms, almost gobbledegook. To give security to those organisations, we should name them in the Bill. As I said, one of my arguments concerns stakeholding. Bodies such as churches, trade unions and others contribute to the life of the City of London and to the quality of that life, so I believe that they should be entitled to vote.
With the approval of the House, I shall seek four separate votes on qualifying bodies. I accept that that is difficult, but we are dealing with a sliding scale of amendments which could improve the Bill. We should at least seek to include in the Bill an acceptance that churches and others would be recognised as qualifying bodies. I would welcome your advice on those votes and their time scale, Mr, Deputy Speaker.
I shall explain the meaning of the linked amendments Nos. 3, 65, 5 and 48. There should have been a further consequential amendment, which would have deleted clause 3(1)(c). Unfortunately, however, it was not tabled. Let me offer apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who tabled several of the amendments and is on parliamentary duties in Washington.

Mr. Pound: In Tyne and Wear?

Mr. McDonnell: In the United States.
I have added my name to several amendments tabled by my hon. Friend.
The Labour party's manifesto sets out the background to the amendments. We are seeking to abide by the commitments that we gave to the electorate during the election. We have sought to establish good local government, enabling people to have the powers within their area which they felt that they needed to improve their quality of life. The manifesto states that local government should work in partnership with local people, local business and local voluntary organisations. We argued that councils would have the powers necessary to develop partnerships and bring about greater accountability. We also said that we would try to introduce a general power of improvement for certain areas. The amendments seek to do that.
Our party leader's argument at a certain conference about the forces of conservatism was an argument in favour of democratic engagement. The House has established, within its Public Administration Committee, a Committee to examine innovations in citizen participation. Our amendments seek to ensure that we engage the citizens of the City of London corporation in their own government and management.
In the past, we have defined citizens, especially in relation to local government, as people living in a defined geographical area. However, there are exceptions, and overseas voters are included. The previous Government included passport holders as voters, but a local connection—even one from 20 years ago—qualified them for that. I believe that the present Government are reducing that period.
There are also proxy and postal votes to cover temporary absences, such as holidays and working away. However, despite further innovations to enhance democratic participation, it is still based on identifiable location. Hence the reforms that we introduced to increase opportunities to register, such as a rolling register right up to the weeks just before an election. That is unlike the previous system of registering, which was based on a date in the October prior to the election. However, even the rolling register is still based on physical presence, and depends on location in a constituency in a parliamentary election, or in a ward in a local government election. Even with proportional representation in the recent London mayoral elections, qualification was still based on living in an area, being located within a boundary—a geographical area of greater London defined by the Greater London Authority's area of responsibility.
Why is that so? It is because we have defined democracy as people who have a common interest—almost a physical interest in the area that they share—coming together in their shared life experiences. Democratic participation and votes cast should be based on the knowledge of that area.
7.30 pm
A voter in physical occupation is defined in clause 3(1) as an owner, tenant or resident, but, for the qualifying body, the Bill goes further. Clause 2 states that the qualifying body can be established in relation to occupation by
a director, officer, employee or agent of that body
and, in lines 14 to 16 on page 2, goes even further by adding
through a holder of any paid or unpaid office.
A person can be appointed as a voter under clause 3(1)(c) by a qualifying body solely because the organisation can have an agent present in that hereditament.
What does "presence" mean? How long will a person have to be present? Would it be solely on the day or night of the qualifying date—1 September of the previous year? If it is based solely on the presence of a paid agent or an office holder on 1 September, businesses will be able to vote if such a person physically occupies the premises for one day only.
We accept that clause 5 sets out that the voter's principal place of work must be in the City and that the voter must have worked for a qualifying body for 12 months previously, or, under the alternative conditions,

that the voter's principal place of work must have been in the City for an aggregate period of five, or even 10 years. However, the business connection will have to be for only one day on particular premises.
The Bill's promoters have set out their views on what they consider to be its benefits. They say:
The entitlement extends to a qualifying body only if it actually occupies premises in the City for the purposes of carrying out a trade, business, profession or other occupation or calling, while the performance of the functions of any paid or unpaid office being functions for whose performance accommodation has been provided by the qualifying body.
That is a somewhat disingenuous allegation of physical presence. The qualifying body may acquire the rights of physical presence by a director's presence—not that of an employee or a major shareholder. So, the requirement that voters should have a connection with the City in order to gain a right to vote, as stated by the promoters, can be met by a qualifying body with a director—a tenuous connection.
There is an extraordinary circular logic to the promoters' argument. They argue that the qualifying body qualifies because of physical presence, but physical presence can be gained only by a director who is a member of the board of directors. Under clause 5(5), a director can be a person treated as having his principal workplace in the City, and therefore eligible to be a voter. Clause 5(5) states:
A person who on the qualifying date is a member of a board of directors or other governing body of a qualifying body shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having his principal or only place of work on that date, and for the period during which he has been a member of that board or governing body, at the hereditament (or part) in respect of which the entitlement to appoint by that qualifying body arises.

Mr. Bermingham: Would not one be faced with the absolutely ridiculous situation in which somebody who does not own shares in but is a director of Amusement Ltd., running a theme park in north Yorkshire but registering it in London, could become a qualifying voter in the City of London if so appointed?

Mr. McDonnell: There is a strong anxiety—let us put it no stronger than that—that the system will be open to abuse. The Bill is not only almost incomprehensible but unenforceable.

Mr. Pound: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend's flow, which is as ever illuminating and elucidating. He quoted clause 5(5), which refers to the presence of the person
at the hereditament (or part)…
What does he understand by part of the hereditament? Is it a shed in the garden behind the building, a priest hole beneath the stairs, a forgotten part of the attic, a cupboard?

Mr. McDonnell: Understanding the Bill requires an element of fervent study, Jesuitical training and a creativity of mind to enable enlightenment. I do not think that we have enough time for that.

Mr. Pound: I was educated by the Jesuits.

Mr. McDonnell: As someone who was educated by the de la Salle brothers, I suspect that my analysis of the


clause may not have reached the level of the Jesuits. I look for enlightenment from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the sponsor of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who I am sure has a full and thorough understanding of the nature of hereditament and its parts from piloting through Committee this and other Bills. I defy any hon. Member to clarify how clause 5(5) would not result in a director of a company being able to do whatever he or she wanted in order to qualify to cast a vote. We are talking about becoming a voter and not about qualifying to choose a voter.
I shall cite a hypothetical example of someone wanting to abuse the system. If I were interested in shaping the policy of the City of London corporation because I wanted to sell off the assets to friends and reap rich rewards—God forbid—I would encourage my friends to register as a qualifying body by buying a small office or part of a hereditament. I would lodge an agent in that office on 1 September—perhaps for 12 months—or say that I was the company's director and therefore the office was my principal place of work, as clause 5(5) requires.
Not only would my organisation acquire the right to appoint a voter, but I could become that voter because I had been a member of the board of that company and the office would be treated as my principal or only place of work. That is a recipe for every carpetbagger who wants to join the City of London corporation gravy train. I genuinely believe that the matter needs reconsideration and I am surprised that the Bill has come quite so far without much amendment.
Amendment No. 5 would tackle the problem by deleting clause 2(2). Amendment No. 3 would delete further lines that pronounce on the need for physical location in the City of London area. It would delete the contortions in the Bill that will enable someone to qualify as a qualifying body and then as a voter.

Mr. John Cryer: It occurs to me that multinational companies, international banks and other such institutions might consider this putative legislation with some interest on the basis that, if the business vote in Britain can be extended, there is no reason why it cannot be so extended in other countries and in cities such as Tokyo or Toronto.

Mr. McDonnell: It is interesting that my hon. Friend cites Tokyo. I was interviewed over the Christmas recess by Japanese business journalists who were interested in the proposed legislation. They thought that it would provide a fascinating way in which a company could exert influence within a particular area, and was something that would want to be replicated elsewhere. The purchase, establishment and registration of a holder company within an area would enable voters to be chosen, and eventually the representatives could become voters themselves or become the casters of votes, and then move on to the City of London corporation.

Mr. Wareing: Recently there has been reference in the news to the proposal to merge the stock exchanges of London and Frankfurt. Is it possible that under the Bill someone living in Frankfurt could have a vote in the City of London, while a worker, a Londoner, living in the City of London would be denied that possibility?

Mr. McDonnell: It is important that we seek clarification from the promoters. They have issued a

statement today, and I find it difficult that we are not able to respond to such statements. If I had received today's statement early enough, I would have wanted to question parts of it or to publish an alternative brief. The statement contains assertions that voters should have a connection with the City. It goes on basically to argue that whoever qualifies for a vote and casts a vote has a connection with the City. However, as clause 5(5) demonstrates, that connection can be fairly tenuous. It can be indirect, and it can certainly overcome some of the conditions that the Committee sought to include in the Bill to ensure that there would be a connection between those people who cast their votes and those who were elected—that being that they lived, worked and served within the City.
Amendment No. 5 would overcome some of the difficulty by removing the relevant subsection. I urge the House to examine the potential for voting for the amendment. As I have said, amendment No. 3 is designed to ensure physical location overall.
The qualification that a qualifying body will seek under the proposed legislation is physical presence by an officer. "Officer" is not defined in the Bill. What does it mean? What legal standing does "officer" have? What officerships are we including within the definition? Are they chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer, auditors, chief executive, president? What other functional officers may qualify? There is a strong argument for amendment No. 3, which would delete the provision that enables a director, officer or agent, or holder of any paid or unpaid office, of the body concerned to be present and therefore qualified to vote because it is in occupation.
As for other functional officers, how far does the provision extend and what is the relevant case law? For example, is it possible to designate more than one person to any of these officerships on a joint basis? If we had joint secretaries, could it be that only one of them would need to be present within a particular location to satisfy the condition of occupation? It seems that there has been no debate on the matter, and I would welcome assurances from the promoters and my hon. Friend the Minister that the matter has been or will be examined, and that we shall receive a statement.
The objective of my line of questioning is to ascertain how open the proposed legislation is to abuse and manipulation by the unscrupulous, or by those who do not wish to lose their less formal or perhaps ceremonial positions. An attempt may be being made to keep the free lunches coming. However, there may also be an attempt by some to manipulate the proposed legislation to enable other abuse at a later stage.
7.45 pm
Amendment No. 3 would eliminate the possibility of qualifying bodies enabling the agent to be present. We should be anxious about the concept of an agent. How is agency defined? Are there qualifications to be gained for someone to become an agent? If so, can I apply? What is the transaction that enables an agent to be appointed? Has a legal process to be completed to designate an agent? If so, what is it? Is there a documentation process to record the award of an agency? The issue is important because residents qualify for a vote as a result of residency, and that residency is recorded on the electoral roll. I take it that the business qualifies as a result of the hereditament,


and that is recorded also as a result of the ownership of property and the payment of council tax, business rates and other forms of evidence.
However, what documentation evidences an agency? If there is documentation, is it a matter of public record? Is it open to public inspection? Will it be covered by freedom of information legislation that we are promoting as part of local government legislation so that there will be access to information? Will there be an electoral roll that will be open to free examination by the public?
It is fairly clear what I am getting at. If anyone can be an agent, if any process can be followed, if there is no transparency, if there is no documentation and if there is no so-called electoral roll of agents, how can we test the bona fides of an agency?

Mr. John Cryer: It occurs to me that in this place at least we have a Register of Members' Interests. We know that when the Conservative Administration was in power, not all Conservative Members bothered to fill it in completely and honestly. Nevertheless, we have the register. Given the proposals in the Bill, we shall not see anything resembling a register of voters' interests.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. If there is an issue of agency, the agency would enable the qualification of a qualifying body to appoint voters. Those voters would in turn elect the corporation representatives. My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that we should be aware of the interest of agents when they exercise that function. Amendments were tabled relating to the registration of masonic links, for example, which were not selected. Whatever the system, it is important that there is transparency. Why is that? It is because qualification is based on physical occupation. How is it possible to check physical occupation as in clause 2, if we do not know the name of the agent, the process of authorisation or who authorised the agent? How can we challenge the qualification of a qualifying body to vote on the basis of the occupation of the agent if the identity of the agent is not recorded along with the property that he is supposed to be occupying?

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend is using the word "agent". I have scoured the Bill: what is an agent?

Mr. McDonnell: That was the first question that I asked. I would welcome a definition from the promoters and from my hon. Friend the Minister. If we are talking of a person acting on behalf of an organisation, it should be relatively simple to put him on some form of electoral roll. If the agent is an organisation, matters become more difficult. Who are the agents of that organisation? It becomes extremely difficult to define and is open to abuse because it is not transparent. I would welcome a clear definition of "agent" from the promoters.

Dr. Godman: The aim of amendments Nos. 3 and 5 may not be to protect the interests of existing voters. If my hon. Friend fails to persuade the House to vote for those amendments, is it likely that the present electors—the people who live in London—would become a minority in the new electorate established by the Bill? That is an important question. It may be an indirect consequence of the Bill that the present electors become a minority.

Mr. McDonnell: That is one of the issues that has been raised consistently throughout the debate and in

Committee. Our concern is that if organisations, particularly businesses, are qualifying bodies under the clause and can therefore appoint voters, they will swamp the residential vote.
Assurances were given to the Committee that the promoters would introduce a wider package of reforming measures. Their statement today says:
The Bill forms only part of a wider package of reforming measures, and the Promoters have given the Select Committee formal undertakings as to the implementation of the remainder. These can be dealt with by the Corporation's legislative mechanisms and do not therefore require Parliamentary powers.
Some of those measures would entail the re-warding of the City of London corporation to protect the resident voters. Although those assurances were given to the Select Committee in June last year and we received statements like the one today from the promoters in June, July, November and January, the reform package has not been completed. Therefore the protections that my hon. Friend seeks have not been secured.
That is why it is critical that we debate amendment No. 3 properly tonight. The amendment would go some way to providing that protection by deleting the passage from lines 10 to 19 which allows the manipulation of the system, making it possible to become a qualifying body by being a director, officer, employee and so on, or an office holder.
The amendment would also strike at the heart of the concept of "agent". It would resist this democracy by proxy, and the substitution of the elector by other nominees. It would require physical presence. Occupation of
any hereditament, or part of a hereditament, means occupation by personal physical presence there.
That is what the amendment would achieve.
In addition to the words "director" and "agent", clause 2(1)(b) refers to the catch-all concept of office holder.

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The concept of physical presence is clearly important in elections, but in general and local elections we make provision for postal voting for those who cannot be physically present. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that?

Mr. McDonnell: I tried to clarify that in previous debates. There is a distinction between those who are temporarily absent from their normal residence, and those who have no connection with an area. That is why this Government have tried to deal with the ridiculous provisions for the overseas vote introduced by the previous Government, whereby someone could vote in my constituency, for example, although he had not been there for 20 years. We have tried to restore the local connection. That is based on residence, either current or sometime previously. The Bill does not enable us to re-assert that principle.
Amendment No. 65 would delete lines 14 to 16 of clause 2, which relate to the concept of office holder. That is the final catch-all. If one is not personally, physically present to qualify, one can do so by being a director or officer, or one can appoint an agent. If that is too much trouble or costs too much, one can set up an office for an office holder. The beauty of that arrangement is that it avoids any payments to an agent, because it can be an unpaid office holder.
What is an unpaid office holder? That sounds like a member of the family. It sounds like some form of sinecure. What type of office is envisaged? I would welcome a response to these questions and a clear view from the promoters. Perhaps they can provide that in a future statement. Are the offices restricted? What is their range?
Let me give an example. Does any activity pursued on behalf of a firm enable the person pursuing that activity to be described as an office holder? If the office is unpaid, what is the relationship between the individual in occupation and the body that qualifies on the basis of his occupation? What is an office holder?
The wording suggests that the activities of the office holder
for the performance of whose functions accommodation is being provided by a qualifying body
are not irrelevant. Functions are performed within that accommodation, but the clause does not define what office that person or persons will hold in relation to the performance of those functions. The wording is extraordinary. On that basis, virtually anyone who passes through a venue, or who has some vague relationship to a company, can enable it to become a qualifying body, qualifying for votes in the City corporation.
The office holder does not necessarily have to be an office holder of that qualifying body. The clause refers to
a holder or any paid or unpaid office for the performance of whose functions accommodation is being provided by a qualifying body.
It does not specify that that is an office holder of that qualifying body.
There may have been an error of drafting. I understand the intent, but it is not reflected in the content. A person operating from accommodation provided by a qualifying body may be unrelated to that body, may not be an employee of that body and may not be performing a function of that body. That is muddled drafting, which could open up a vista of abuse and manipulation.
The muddle continues into the next paragraph. What is a "qualifying body"? The drafting is unbelievable. I asked the House of Commons Library to provide advice. Amendment No. 3 would strike out this paragraph as well. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, it is gobbledegook.
The clause states:
qualifying body" means a body corporate or an unincorporated body other than a partnership within the meaning of section of the Partnership Act 1890…
I want to explore what that means because it is almost meaningless as it is currently drafted. I have asked for a definition of "body corporate". It usually means a body that is incorporated under a public or private statute other than the Companies Acts. A good example is a private water company or, previously, the Post Office. It also includes companies that are incorporated by a royal charter and probably those that are incorporated by prescription. The City of London corporation is a good example.
Although the term "body corporate" is used to distinguish a body from companies under the Companies Acts, in general usage, it could include such companies. It may also include companies that are incorporated

overseas. How much stakeholding can foreign companies have in the City of London corporation? That question was asked earlier. Under the definition that I have given, a body corporate could be a body that was incorporated overseas.
I asked the Library for a definition of an "unincorporated body". If we have at least some definition of a body corporate, what is an incorporated body? The response said that "unincorporated body" would probably cover almost every entity apart from an individual. That is startling. It means that almost everything apart from an individual is an unincorporated body. However, we cannot be sure because our advice from the Library states that the meaning will depend on the context because it can be further defined. The term that is used in the Companies Act 1985 is applied widely, but that measure contains no helpful definition.
"Unincorporated" could include partnerships, building societies, friendly societies, corporate and joint ventures, co-operatives and other mutual bodies, and unincorporated associations. It could even include such bodies as police authorities. The previous debate that we held about hospitals might therefore be relevant. The Library said that "unincorporated body" was a catch-all term. The clause states that a qualifying body is a body corporate or an unincorporated body. That is extraordinary. In other words, it covers anything apart from an individual.
However, for some bizarre reason, the clause excludes
a partnership within the meaning of section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890…
I tried to clarify that. As a Member of Parliament, stumbling through a private Bill, I believed that it should at least be comprehensible to us before we enacted it, if we enact it. I dutifully asked the Library to trawl through the definition of partnership in section 1 of the Partnership Act 1890. I challenge the majority of hon. Members to understand the relevance of the exclusion of such partnerships. Section 1 of the 1890 Act states:
Partnership is the relation which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.
I cannot understand why, having included bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies, the Bill excludes partnerships that are established to pursue profit.

8 pm

Mr. Bermingham: As a lawyer, I declare an interest. A partnership under the 1890 Act does not carry limited liability. Each partner is jointly and severally liable for the whole of the debts incurred. A corporate or unincorporated body can carry limited liability. If specific partnerships are permitted, what happens to those, such as me, who are members of chambers in the City of London, but are not in partnership with anyone? Every member of my chambers is entitled to vote in the City of London.

Mr. McDonnell: That is a good point, which I was going to make later. The Bill must clarify exactly who is entitled to vote. Clause 1, which is a quagmire of a provision, gives a vote to almost all those who want to wangle one if they own a certain amount of property. It is therefore bizarre that it isolates the partnerships for


which the 1890 Act provides. I understand the issue about limited liability. However, section 1 of the 1890 Act also states:
But the relation between members of any company or association which is registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1862, or any other Act of Parliament…formed or incorporated by or in pursuance of any other Act…a company engaged in working mines within and subject to the jurisdiction of the Stannaries…is not a partnership within the meaning of this Act.
It is extraordinary that the Bill proposes the exclusion of partnerships that do not have limited liability, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who has vast experience of the law, pointed out, and those that pursue profit. Why exclude them? The promoters should explain that. Surely the City corporation is not embarrassed about the pursuit of profit? If it is, the revolution is here.
Amendment No. 5 would delete subsection (2) of clause 2. As I explained, the amendments that are associated through trying to define "qualifying body" refer to the concept of an unincorporated body in occupation that is treated as the owner or tenant. Subsection (2) provides for the unincorporated body to be treated as owner or tenant
whether or not the…owner or tenant…is in occupation.
Again, that is gobbledegook. What does it mean? If an unincorporated body is any organisation other than an individual, the provision is open to abuse. Subsection (2) provides that the
unincorporated body which is in occupation of the whole or part of a hereditament shall be taken to be so as owner or tenant whether or not the person who is on its behalf the owner or tenant of that hereditament or part is in occupation.
Occupation goes out of the window.
The associated amendments deal with physical occupation. The Bill drives a coach and horses through the concept of physical occupation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead stated in a letter that one only has to read clause 2(2) to realise that it is gobbledegook, vague and not properly defined. He asks whether partnerships and other non-corporate bodies are included. He states that the provision is open to abuse, misuse or misinterpretation and that it is a lawyer's paradise. I agree, but the lawyers will be corporate lawyers, who will try to secure an interest for their company.
We have heard the interpretation of what is an unincorporated body. I suggest in amendment No. 79 that we should include as a qualifying body
a church, religious body, voluntary sector or community organisation which has registered as a charity under the Charities Act 1993.
Those may fall within the definition of an unincorporated body, but there is no guarantee of that. I sought clarification and advice on whether their inclusion could be guaranteed. Unincorporated bodies can be interpreted in the context of specific legislation, a law or a particular case, but there is an element of uncertainty. We need to guarantee recognition of the role played by those key stakeholders, which must be able to qualify for votes.
I care about the fact that such organisations must be reputable. For that reason, I have included the safeguard that they should be registered as charities under the Charities Act 1993. There are guaranteed standards of transparency, probity and community support for voluntary or community organisations, which provide

justification for their qualifying for a vote. There is no doubt that they are key stakeholders. There are numerous churches and a vast number of voluntary organisations in the City of London corporation area and I pay tribute to the enhanced role that the corporation has played in recent years, particularly through the Bridges fund, to develop community support in its area. The Bill should ensure that community organisations, especially those that have been enhanced by the corporation's support, are entitled to qualify at least for a vote on determining a voter.
Amendment No. 80, which also deals with qualification, recognises another stakeholder by suggesting that a
trade union certificated under section one of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
should also be a qualifying body. That represents not a back-door route to workers' control, but recognition that trade unions, which have many members and a presence in the City corporation, are key stakeholders. The Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union and other unions that organise City employees have strong memberships and therefore should have a strong voice, at least as qualifying bodies that can nominate a voter who would then qualify for a vote that would help to elect the City of London corporation. The representatives of the organised work force would then be eligible to qualify for a vote.
Amendment No. 80 does not represent industrial democracy, but it recognises the role of trade unions as stakeholders and partners. It would open up the management of the City corporation to its own trade unionists as well as the trade unions based in the City that represent City workers. For example, it would enable trade unions such as Unison and the Police Federation, as an association, to have some say in the management of the City corporation as they would qualify for a vote for a voter. I welcome the promoters looking sympathetically on the engagement of those key stakeholders in the system.
The argument on these amendments is important to us because physical presence is critical; it has been at the heart of our democratic system throughout. Democracy, from the Greeks onward, has been founded on the rights of those living and working in a defined geographical area. Why? Because electors then have a direct interest in the management of their environment and the place in which they live and work, because they have shared life experiences that bind them together and because democratic participation and casting a vote should be based on living knowledge of the area that people seek to represent. They should know which issues need to be confronted and how best to address them. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like a separate vote on physical presence.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend rightly emphasises the need to protect the interests of the residential voters, but what assurances have the promoters given on the protection of the interests of residents who want to stand for office in the court of common council? Am I right that a number of the elected representatives on the court of common council live in the Barbican? Would his amendments protect their interests as elected representatives?

Mr. McDonnell: Again, the protections that my hon. Friend seeks may be present in the wider package of


reform measures that the corporation and the promoters suggest in their statement. However, until the measures are implemented, how can we ensure that those rights are guaranteed? That is a valid point and I am sure that those from the corporation who are listening to the debate would be willing to meet him to go through the details. They kindly saw my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead and the meeting was fruitful, if only in terms of discussing crossrail and how many more grants for his constituency could be pursued. They have also offered to see me. I apologise for being unable to make a previous meeting; it was to have taken place on the day of Bernie Grant's funeral so I could not attend. The corporation has been courteous enough to offer Members individual meetings to discuss protection and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) to take that matter up directly with it.
Amendment No. 64 is associated with amendments Nos. 26, 34, 37, 16, 17, 38, 25, 54 and 56, and I shall explain why they are all of a part. They are based on the simple premise that a body should have a physical presence in the area to qualify. We have considered how that can be distorted and contorted in the Bill, but now we must discuss another matter. Even if a vote is to be based on a business, a location or a commercial operation—not the stringent physical presence requirements that we want—the number of votes should be based not on the property holding, but on the number of employees at a particular firm or qualifying body. Those employees should be able to elect the voters who in turn, along with the residents, would eventually elect the City corporation. The electorate should comprise human beings, not properties, and electoral rights should be based on individuals and their role as residents, workers or employees.
Amendment No. 64 makes the first reference to the "employee" as having a physical presence in the hereditament to gain qualification for the qualifying body.

Mr. Bermingham: Has my hon. Friend considered the situation that could well arise in which a registered office is in a building occupied by firms of solicitors? He will no doubt have seen a sign listing company after company whose registered offices are in such a building. According to the promoters, under clause 3 they do not have to be separately rated. Does each of those companies, because the director and secretary are registered there, become a qualifying voter? If so, one block could have 50, 60, 70, 80 or 150 qualifying voters, all of whom would have a vote but none of whom would have any employees working in the block.

Mr. McDonnell: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I am not sure whether such contortion can be prevented. I would welcome the promoter's response to that point. Such multiple qualification could lead to abuse. It would be worth having a statement from the promoters about how that problem would be tackled. It may be tackled in the reform package that they have suggested, which falls outside the Bill. We may need to examine that problem in more detail.
Amendment No. 64 would identify the employee as the first reference and key to defining physical presence in the hereditament to gain qualification as a qualifying body. I accept that there are possibilities for abuse, as my hon.

Friend suggested, either with or without employees, but we need to state the principle of the employee being the key element.
Amendment No. 26 would define "relevant employee" as
a person whose principal or only place of work on the qualifying date is ordinarily the hereditament in respect of which the entitlement to appoint a voter arises and who works for that qualifying body.
I have chosen that definition to overcome some of the queries and concerns that hon. Members have previously raised. It is important that it is not a fly-by-night employee who is at that place of work for only a limited time and moves on, or who moves from place to place and can qualify various bodies simultaneously. It should be the employee's principal or only place of work. That would prevent a person from being hired as a transient or peripatetic employee to become the carpetbagger who enables individual companies to qualify.
There have been discussions about how difficult it would be to establish a company's employment resources. I appreciate the difficulties in establishing who the relevant employees are and whether a location is their principal or only place of work. I acknowledged that on Second Reading, but I think that we were too charitable because it is clear that companies can readily identify from their records who their employees are. Extensive employment records are required for statutory purposes, such as national insurance, taxation, tax avoidance, and health and safety. Employees can be traced, located, verified and associated with a particular company.
There is no difficulty identifying employees and relating them to firms. The difficulty is relating employees to fixed locations: that may be open to abuse. If so, we should perhaps introduce a location register similar to the electoral roll. It could be funded by companies seeking qualification. If they apply to be a qualifying body on the basis of having employees at a particular location, they could fund the registration of those employees with the City corporation. If the City corporation can produce an electoral roll for residents, I see no difficulty in ensuring an electoral roll for employees.
It is argued that, on the City corporation's estimate, about 250,000 employees commute to the City each day for work. That number of people would not be difficult to register. It may seem large, but it is the electoral roll of my borough and of most boroughs in London, so it is manageable. The onus should be on the companies seeking to be qualifying bodies on the basis of their employees. They should assist in the financing of an electoral roll based on employment.
Such a register would be verifiable, because anyone could compare the electoral roll of employees with national insurance, taxation or health and safety records. I do not accept the argument that it is an insuperable problem to define "relevant employee" and to ensure that that person has a principal or only place of work at that firm and that they are located within that hereditament.
Amendment No. 4 was not selected, so I shall pass it by. It would have excluded people associated with the sex industry. I am not sure why it was not selected, but I shall leave that to hon. Members' imagination. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead wanted to show that the term "relevant employee" may have to be further


defined. We may want to exclude certain employment, and I understand that. We exclude people from the electoral roll because of their criminal activity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what he knows perfectly well he must not do. He said he would pass the amendment by, and he must pass it by completely.

Mr. McDonnell: I have passed the amendment by, and shall now deal with amendment No. 34, which states that a qualifying body may only appoint—I detest the word "appoint" and prefer the word "elect", which is why I have tried to amend other parts of the Bill—

Mr. Pound: There is no future for my hon. Friend in the Labour party then.

Mr. McDonnell: I hope that you did not hear that, Sir Alan. It was almost a compliment.
Amendment No. 34 would require that a qualifying body could appoint a voter only if it had conducted a ballot of its employees to determine the person appointed as a voter. As it stands, the Bill provides that a person appointed as a voter would probably be appointed by a decision of the board or by a director or chief executive, but we do not know, because it is not defined.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend realise that that creates one of the most alarming anomalies in the Bill? Say that the board of X Ltd. decided to appoint my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) as a voter in the City of London and then by some mischance he gets himself elected to the corporation's board and the directors decide that they do not like him and take him off the voting list. He would lose his right to sit on the City corporation. Someone who is unelected and unaccountable would have disfranchised a human being and removed a councillor. I cannot see that being in accordance with the European convention on human rights.

Mr. McDonnell: I advise my hon. Friend not to stray into the issue of compliance with the European convention on human rights, because that may cause difficulties. The issue is about right of recall. Amendment No. 34 suggests that a ballot should be conducted to ensure that a person appointed as a voter is appointed on the basis of the wishes of employees in the relevant firm. As my hon. Friend says, under the Bill as it stands that person will be appointed on the whim of the firm, and his or her appointment can therefore be withdrawn on the same whim. Not only would that undermine the potential vote; it could undermine the individual's position and status if he or she were elected to the corporation of the City of London. It cannot be right for a company to have that power of veto and that right of recall.
8.30 pm
I am trying to ensure that there is an election by employees, because that would prevent an individual company from seeking to influence the corporation in respect of a point of policy that might have a direct bearing on its own operation. As far as I can see, the Bill

as it stands allows companies to exert immense influence on the appointment of voters, and therefore on representatives of the corporation.
In earlier debates, concern was expressed about how, if we agree on a ballot of employees to nominate a voter, we can practically ensure that the ballot is fair, open and transparent and enables employees' will to be exercised fairly and democratically, without undue influence. It is always difficult to prevent the exercising of undue influence, but I do not believe that difficulties will be involved in registering the number of employees in a company in order to conduct a ballot to enable a vote to take place, either in the workplace or by post to employees' home addresses, so that those employees can decide who should exercise their votes and, in some instances, who should become members of the corporation.
The proposal relates to an earlier point, because it would be facilitated by a register of employees. It is not difficult to do that in the case of a population of 250,000, and it is surely not a problem to place such a duty on a company with a limited number of employees in order to ensure probity in the conduct of a ballot. It would remove the right to appoint from the chief executive or the board of directors, and would place that important right in the hands of those who work for the qualifying body.
Amendment No. 37 is consequential. The Bill suggests that if a hereditament spans more than one ward, it should be deemed to be in whichever ward contains the greatest part or structure. The amendment simply proposes that if a hereditament spans more than one ward, the decision on which ward it should belong to should be based not on the scale of the property holding, but on where the largest number of employees are. That would prevent a skewing of the balance.
Amendment No. 16 is also consequential. It suggests that the limitation in clause 3(6) is not necessary if the qualification is based on the number of employees, and would eliminate the limit on the number of votes that a company can exercise on the basis of the number of its employees. Amendment No. 17, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, would delete schedule 1, which, in its present form, bases the allocation of votes on property and is therefore superfluous. The amendment is slightly more radical than amendment No. 38, which would retain the schedule but would amend it to ensure that voters were appointed on the basis of the number of employees.
Amendment No. 40 would place a duty on the qualifying body to ballot its employees to elect the voter or voters. Amendment No. 51 would throw out the word "appoint". It is, I think, a reflection on the Bill that throughout it are references to appointing rather than electing. That is a stain on any Bill that purports to bring about democratic reform. The amendment would install the concept of election—the concept of democracy—where it should be. Perhaps in this debate it constitutes heady radicalism, almost reaching the heights of democratic socialism: it not only includes the word "elect", but would bestow the vote on the workers themselves.
Amendment No. 52, another consequential amendment, would remove the word "appointed" and insert the word "elected". Amendment No. 25 would abolish schedule 1. Amendment No. 53 would also remove "appoint" and


insert "elect". Amendment No. 54, a more moderate amendment to the schedule, would introduce a system whereby, rather than the current allocation of votes in relation to the value of property owned—£200 up to £20,000 of rateable value, over £20,000 but not over £1 million, and over £1 million—there would be an allocation based on the number of employees. I suggest that the association with rateable value should be replaced by a system of one vote for every 1,000 employees, and that they should be "relevant employees" physically based in the hereditament in which a company seeks to qualify for the vote.
It has been argued that the residential vote might be swamped. Given an electorate of about 250,000 commuters coming into the City, that will not happen: the 2,500 votes will be allocated to companies on the basis of the number of their employees, and, with 5,000 residential votes, there will be no such swamping. I do not think that linking the number of votes to the number of employees on the basis of one per 1,000 is in any way intimidating in terms of the residential vote; I also think that my amendment would secure a balanced approach to the number of votes employees should have, on which businesses can then draw.
Amendment No. 56 is a similar consequential amendment that removes the reference to votes based on rateable value and installs the reference to the vote based on the number of employees.
At its mildest, my argument throughout the debate on this sub-group of amendments is that, if votes are to be distributed, the employees themselves must have their say, and that their right to have a say has been denied them until now; there has been no say for employees within companies.
If we are—I mean it sincerely—to build a stakeholder society, we will need to ensure that all the stakeholders are thoroughly involved. The Bill does not do that. The amendments go some way to ensuring that stakeholders are identified and provided with rights. I accept that with those rights come responsibilities; there is a responsibility of service. If one votes for a body, one is also entitled at some stage to stand for that body and to provide it with a service.
We discussed the stakeholder theme before the last general election and it was seized on by the Government. We developed it under new Labour and as part of the third way following Will Hutton's book "The State We're In." That seminal work opened and developed a debate about what a just society is. A just society is one in which we all have a stake. It is one in which we can make a contribution financially, in employment terms or, as some of us do, by participating voluntarily through voluntary organisations. In any democratic reform, those stakes, those contributions, should be recognised.
The amendments go some way to acknowledging the stakeholder society within the City corporation area. Almost unlike any other area, the City corporation is ripe for a stakeholder approach. It has a combination of residents and, thanks to City corporation funding, a strong and developed voluntary and community sector. Religious organisations and churches, which have been with us since mediaeval times, have also developed there, and there is the business sector. However, what has been

missing among all those groups of stakeholders has been the voice of the workers themselves—the people who spend most of their working day in the environment of the City.

Mr. Wareing: There is another group of people who perhaps deserve an amendment: the students, for example, at the London school of economics.

Dr. Godman: There is also the City university.

Mr. Wareing: Indeed, there is the City university, Goldsmith's college and various other higher and further education establishments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us deal with the Bill as it is.

Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a way in which to acknowledge the role of students almost as though they were employees of a particular body within an organisation, but I shall not pursue that matter because I can see that you are not succumbing to that argument. I shall concentrate on the amendments in hand.
That set of amendments, which is linked to a further set that we may debate later or on another occasion—which establishes electoral colleges—seeks to establish a stakeholder concept within the City of London corporation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No doubt inadvertently, the hon. Gentleman has started to repeat himself. That I cannot allow.

Mr. McDonnell: At this stage, then, I simply need to say that the amendments allow for the formation of the right of workers within the City to have a say over their immediate environment. Why is that important? Because they should have a right to have a say over how their immediate environment is managed and governed. What does that mean? It is not industrial democracy within a firm; it is not about workers' rights; it is about the right of the estimated 250,000 workers who commute to the City to have a say and to make their contribution. It enables development of a discussion whereby those people can say what they require and how their needs can be met within the City area.
Before I conclude, may I briefly put the following point? Residents have their say over what they feel they need. Businesses have their say over what they feel they require within that limited environment to ensure that they function as businesses. What is not heard is the voice of employees who come into the area, telling us what they need to function as employees. I give a few simple examples.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has dwelt on that point to such an extent that I shall begin to think of invoking the Standing Order against him for repetition.

Mr. McDonnell: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wanted to mention the example of nurseries, which would enhance the quality of employees' lives, and the need for out-of-hours schooling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled on repetition. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need fear that any of those people will feel that their views have not been represented.

Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This group of amendments opens up a new agenda for the City corporation and asks new questions of all of us. It opens up a new horizon, giving us the opportunity to liberate the legislation, to make it truly democratic. I would not want such provision to be replicated elsewhere, because I understand the special argument about the City of London. I understand the special needs of businesses, employees and residents in the City, and how we have to combine those needs.
8.45 pm
Although I do not accept the Bill, if we are to compromise on it—that is what we are trying to do today—I urge hon. Members to accept this group of amendments. The amendments define physical presence, ensure that qualifying bodies are proper qualifying bodies and give a voice to employees.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I once moved a group of 25 amendments, in Committee, in opposition on the Finance Act 1978, but I do not think that I have ever replied to a grouping of 20. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on the stamina with which he spoke to the amendments, although I cannot necessarily agree with the content of his speech. I hope that he and the House will excuse me if I am rather briefer than he has been. Nevertheless, I shall concentrate on and cover his amendments. As the issues are complicated, however, I shall not hurry my objections to his amendments and to those that he shares with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) in this group.
In replying to this group of amendments, I should like first to say a little about Labour Members' objections—on what might be described as grounds of general principle—to the Bill's reference to "qualifying bodies" before explaining the amendments' effect and why, consequently, I shall be inviting the House not to accept them.
As has been made clear in today's exchanges, many of the amendments in this group are prompted by objection in principle to the involvement of those representing businesses—qualifying bodies, in the terminology of this group of amendments—in the City's voting system in the way anticipated or, indeed, at all. The entitlement of individuals appointed by qualifying bodies to participate in City elections—which the amendments seek to alter—reflects, as the arrangements in the City have always reflected, the fact that the City is overwhelmingly a place for doing business rather than for living in.
Participation by business in City elections is not new, as all hon. Members will by now appreciate, but the voting system has been adapted over time to meet changing circumstances. The Bill continues that process. By way of illustration, in the 14th century, the qualification to vote in common council elections was solely a business one: voting entitlement was confined to members of the guilds. That arrangement was later expanded—[Interruption.]

Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I shall give way in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—no doubt he had the same situation in his speech—it is easier if I reach the end of a sentence before someone interrupts me.
The arrangement was later expanded to enable electoral participation, partly by the City companies and partly by the wards. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman is as courteous as ever. I urge him to recognise that, in those days, there was not the same distinction between those who had a company and those who did not. Those who lived and those who worked in the City were one—people worked in their area. I urge him—he has read as much of the literature as I have—to accept that.

Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but he will know—as I was saying a moment or two ago—that part of the objection to the process of this legislation and the City having a business vote has come back to the business vote, as such. However, I acknowledge what he has just said.
The principle of participation by both business and residential interests remains today, and it is reflected in the proposals that we are now considering and in which the concept of qualifying bodies is a key ingredient.
Much of what has been said on the amendments is informed by objection to the inconsistency between the electoral arrangements in the City and those elsewhere. That criticism overlooks the fact that, while local authorities are statutory bodies created since the 19th century, with boundaries determined in accordance with resident populations, the City's jurisdiction has always been based on its position as a centre of trade. As I have already said, its franchises have, over time, reflected that fact. I remark in passing that the City is the most notable centre in Europe for archaeological research, because there has been continuous commercial activity on the site for 2000 years.
The aim of the Bill is to ensure, through appointments made by qualifying bodies, that the range of interests in the modern City business community is properly represented. That aim is no novelty in the development of the City's local governance. It is axiomatic. An argument that local governance of the world's leading international financial centre—which, I remind Labour Members, includes the economic development brief—should be decided solely by 5,000 residents is surely misplaced.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has contended that the Bill would result in City business being given a disproportionate influence in the workings of the Greater London Authority, given the duties on the authority to consult the City's common council, as a London local authority. That point lacks substance, because the Greater London Authority Act 1999, on whose Committee the hon. Gentleman and I both served for many hours, imposes obligations on the authority to consult London local authorities and business interests in the capital. It provides that the business voice is to be heard, regardless of whether it is channelled through a local authority.
The notion that the City is a threat to the workings of the Greater London Authority does not seem to be shared by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), now the mayor of London. His mayoral manifesto, "Ken for London" said, in its business section, "London: Business Capital of Europe", that he will
work with the Corporation of the City of London and major City institutions to ensure London remains the financial capital of Europe.


I shall address specifically the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, whose absence I entirely understand and which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington explained. I shall then respond to the details of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The hon. Gentleman gave an accurate precis of the meeting that the City corporation and I were able to have outside this place with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead since we last debated the Bill.
Amendment No. 3 would remove reference to directors, officers, employees, agents and holders of paid or unpaid offices from the definition of occupation in clause 2. That would define occupation as "personal physical presence" on premises, but without referring to the classes of people who might be included. It is a paving amendment for others in the group, to which I shall speak later. The result would not change the requirement for occupation, but it would create ambiguity as to which people were intended to be covered by the definition.
Amendment No. 5, to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has also appended his name, would remove clause 2(2). In consequence, unincorporated bodies, whose property must, as a matter of law, be held by individuals, would be taken out of entitlement if the individuals who acted as trustees or custodians of the property were not based on the premises. The main casualties of the amendment would be charitable and voluntary sector bodies, which are often unincorporated. Their property is frequently held through the permanent officers based in national or regional offices, with local premises used by voluntary staff or place workers.
Clause 2(2) was included in the Bill because it seemed to the promoters undesirable that such people should be excluded from participation in elections simply as the result of a legal technicality.

Mr. McDonnell: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman supports the amendment that would include churches, religious bodies, the voluntary sector and community organisations in the Bill?

Mr. Brooke: I shall come to that point. The hon. Gentleman has also tabled an amendment including trade unions, and I will deal with both points. To return to the point I was making, such a result seemed to the promoters arbitrary and contrary to the aim of ensuring that as wide a range of interests as possible are included in the new scheme.
Amendment No. 16 would remove the current restriction in clause 3(1)(b) on the number of individuals qualifying bodies may appoint as voters and would require City businesses to appoint as voters everybody working at the premises. As drafted, the amendment would not restrict the entitlement to employees working at premises in the City. That arrangement would increase substantially the electoral base that is consistent with the objectives of the Bill. Requiring entry on the voting lists of all those working for City employers, not necessarily in premises in the City, is questionable, and I suspect that it was not what the hon. Gentleman intended.
Even if the requirement is assumed to be applicable only to City premises, the consequences would mean that the City's resident voters would be completely swamped.

The scheme now before the House has been developed mindful of the need to maintain the voice of residential voters, as I mentioned myself on Second Reading. That objective must mean that the voting entitlement of City businesses has to involve some process of selection. It might be said that the need to apply a mechanism to give the various interests of the City a voice on a representational basis, involving the selection of individuals, is one of the principal points of contention, but amending it by entering every City worker as a voter—I remind the hon. Gentleman that the City has a resident population of some 5,000 and a daytime one well in excess of 250,000—is not a practical solution.

Mr. McDonnell: The amendments would register employers as voters for voters, who would in turn elect the City corporation, in the same way that the Bill would register businesses to appoint voters for voters who would then take part in the elections.

Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to have a laboured exchange with the hon. Gentleman, but as I said a moment ago his intent is not always matched by the words he seeks to include in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead, are interlinked and would remove schedule 1. The result would be to delete the scheme for appointing voters by qualifying bodies by reference to rateable values. Acceptance of the amendments would leave the Bill in a highly ambiguous, indeed unworkable, state, because clause 3 would provide for appointments by qualifying bodies by reference to rateable values. I infer, however, that taken together the hon. Gentleman's amendments are intended to remove the appointments mechanism for qualifying bodies altogether. That would leave clause 3(1)(a) and (b) to define the qualifications of voters in ward elections. That definition is essentially a restatement of the existing business and residential franchise, which therefore means that the primary objective of the current Bill—to broaden the franchise—would be defeated.
Here I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may deliberately have been seeking to reach that outcome, even though it is not the purpose of the Bill.
9 pm
I turn now to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Amendment No. 48 would exclude members of governing bodies of qualifying bodies who are not based at the premises to which the voting entitlement relates. Clause 5(5) was included in the Bill for those reasons.
First, as a matter of law, the directors or members of the governing body of an unincorporated business are regarded as the personification of the company. It would be somewhat odd if such people, who could be held personally responsible for a qualifying body, could not be appointed under the Bill. Clause 5(5) makes sure that the entitlement is conferred.
Secondly, it seems inequitable to exclude everyone working for a qualifying body from participating in the new scheme simply because the directors happened not to have offices in that building. I have referred already to a similar point with regard to amendment No. 5.
Thirdly, there was a specific desire to enable those who participate in the running of charities to involve themselves in the extended franchise. Charities often depend on part-time board members. Those public-spirited people may well have a very valuable contribution to make, and the City corporation has sought to facilitate that contribution by including clause 5(5) in the Bill.
Amendment No. 64 would exclude reference to officers and agents from the definition of occupation in clause 2. Personal physical presence as a requirement of occupation would remain, but the explanation of which classes of persons might satisfy the requirement would be removed. There would continue to be specific reference to directors and employees, but not to officers and agents. At the very least, the result would make the meaning of the word "occupation" less clear.
However, if amendment No. 64 were to exclude officers and agents from the definition, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington may intend, the effect would be rather worse. For example, if the company secretary were based in the premises but the directors were based in another building, the whole work force at the former premises would be excluded from participation in the enlarged franchise. That would be a form of social exclusion.
The reference to agents was included by the promoters of the Bill because the conduct of company affairs through an agent has long been established as a fact of commercial life, and there appears to be no reason to exclude those working for companies from the scheme simply on the basis of those companies' internal management arrangements.
Amendment No. 65 would remove limb (b) from the definition of "occupation" in clause 2. That provides that occupation by personal physical presence includes the situation where holders of paid or unpaid offices occupy premises for the performance of their work. Amendments Nos. 79 and 80, with which I shall deal later, touch on the same subject.
The provision was included primarily to deal with religious organisations, which will, under the Bill, be able to participate even if the property in the City that they occupy is unrated. Premises used by holders of religious offices—those offices may well be unpaid—will not usually be owned by them. Instead, office holders will use accommodation made available by others, either for philanthropic reasons, or through a board or other intermediate body whose job is to provide accommodation throughout a given area or nationally for members of the religious organisation concerned. The clergy, and those connected with religious orders, are a relevant interest in the City community, as elsewhere, and the promoters of the Bill would not wish them to be excluded.
Amendment No. 79, about which the hon. Gentleman intervened on me, would exclude churches, religious bodies, and voluntary sector and community organisations registered as charities from the extended franchise. Amendment No. 80 would have a similar effect on trade unions. From the manner in which the hon. Gentleman spoke to those amendments, and from his recent intervention, I do not think that that was his intention in tabling them. However, that is the effect that they would have. The reason is that in both cases, the additional words proposed in the amendments follow the words "other than" in the current definition of a qualifying body in clause 2.
It will be apparent from what I have said already that the amendments run counter to the intention of the Bill, which is to include as wide a range of interests as possible in the new scheme. In the amendments, the hon. Gentleman—inadvertently, I am quite certain—would simply enlarge the number of people who could be excluded, by specific reference.

Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out what could have been a drafting error. Leaving that aside, would he, on behalf of the promoters, suggest that with a redraft the proposal could be brought back to ensure that the Bill provided for the inclusion of churches, voluntary organisations, religious bodies and trade unions?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he put his question. I was not seeking to grind him—to use the phrase so often used by Ministers—about the amendments being defective. Those amendments are not so much defective as wrongly addressed.
I have alluded on two occasions to the importance of including charities and churches. The hon. Gentleman intervened on me in my first reference to that. It is the promoters' intention that churches and charities should be included. I will, of course, in the familiar phrase, make sure that the promoters are confident that their intent is fully reinforced by the way in which the Bill is currently constructed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing the need for that contribution.

Mr. McDonnell: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to extend his reference to trade unions?

Mr. Brooke: I am less well advised on trade unions, but I will certainly draw the issue to the attention of the promoters.
Amendment No. 26 would insert a new definition of "relevant employee" in clause 2. The definition is picked up in the substantive amendment No. 34, which would require a ballot of all employees to decide who is to be appointed. Selection by ballot, rather than by appointment, can be made to sound attractive—and if I may say so, the hon. Gentleman did so make it. That is, however, as far as the matter goes, as is apparent—at least, in my speech—once the practical implications are examined. I should like to spend a short while in that examination.
The hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of industrial ballots and referral under the Employment Relations Act 1999. He will know that a simple statement requiring a ballot is a very long way from the difficulties of the practice. As one of the leading independently produced handbooks on the subject says:
the rules for industrial action ballots are notoriously complex…
It notes the description by the Master of the Rolls of the practice of ballots as
a minefield in which it is all too easy to stray from the paths of safety and legality…
The hon. Gentleman may know of the survey conducted in 1998 by the Labour research department, a body whose findings may appeal more to him than they necessarily would to me. The survey revealed that balloting irregularities accounted for 45 per cent. of all employers'


legal actions against trade unions since 1983. It is against that background that the hon. Gentleman's amendments must be judged.
The amendments do not provide anything like the level of safeguards that Parliament has set down as necessary to ensure fairness and propriety in the conduct of industrial ballots. That is particularly apposite when one considers the context of the amendments, which seek to address issues of democratic legitimacy. For example, there is no requirement for an independent scrutineer, and no control over how the ballot is to be conducted. In particular, there is nothing about whether the ballot should be secret, as is now required for all industrial action ballots. In fact, nothing is said about the procedure by which the ballots envisaged by the amendments would be conducted.
I do not seek in any way to get at the hon. Gentleman's amendments. If I may pay him a parliamentary compliment across the Floor of the House, I think that his 20 amendments—all of which were regarded by Madam Speaker as being within the rules of order—have provided us with a rich feast. The fact that one or two details may be missing at the margins should not be held against his achievement in constructing them.
The hon. Gentleman might quite properly say that he would envisage ballots being conducted as all others are, so that probity may be reasonably assumed. Once that point is accepted, however, one must also accept that statutory procedures and rules would need to be imposed, which is, to re-quote the graphic terminology of the Master of the Rolls, "a minefield". It appears to be generally agreed that—because, no doubt, of the procedural complexities—ballots are an expensive business. They are not embarked upon lightly, but the hon. Gentleman's amendments would require every business and other qualifying body in the City to embark on one. That seems tantamount to the creation of an obstacle guaranteed to ensure that City businesses did not participate, with the result that the Bill's proposals would come to nothing.

Mr. McDonnell: rose—

Mr. Brooke: I shall give way, but the hon. Gentleman will understand, after what I have just said, if I animadvert to him in my subsequent remarks.

Mr. McDonnell: I am trying to sidestep becoming a parliamentary institution. On independent scrutiny, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I made points about the ability of individual firms to fund proposals, the structure of balloting and postal balloting. That aside, will he advise me on what independent scrutiny there is of the registration of qualifying bodies under the Bill?

Mr. Brooke: I shall respond first to that point and then return to what I had intended to say. In answer to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I must, if he will allow me, fall back on the ministerial prop of saying that I shall write to him. As for the references that he perfectly properly made in his speech, as his speech lasted in excess of 100 minutes, I should not wish to take an examination on the whole of it. I was seeking, as best I could, to ensure that I responded to his central points.
Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was about to say that I could not tell whether the fact that his references to ballots might drive a coach and horses through the City's intentions for the Bill was his ulterior and secret motive, but that I could say that that would be their effect.
Amendment No. 37 seeks to alter clause 3 to provide that hereditaments that cross ward boundaries are to be treated as located in the ward in which the majority of employees working at the hereditament concerned are located. The clause provides that cross-boundary properties are allocated on the basis of the ward in which the greater part of the building is located.
9.15 pm
The undesirability—if not the impracticability—of deciding location on the basis of where in the premises employees are located is not difficult to identify. Employees are not static, and an attempted assessment of the part of the premises in which the majority of them might be located at any given moment is likely to yield highly arbitrary results. Even if the amendment were read as implying reference to an additional parameter—such as where in the building the employees usually work—in deciding location, the results would be capricious. Allocation of the voting entitlement could, for example, end up being based on the position of office furniture in a room, and could be altered simply by moving the desks around.
Buildings have a degree of permanence, and the approach taken by clause 3 is consistent with that taken in other contexts, including, for example, the compilation of rating lists where hereditaments cross rating authority boundaries. That, I suggest, offers a much more practicable and precedented method of dealing with property that crosses ward boundaries.
Amendment No. 38 would add a reference to "relevant employees" in clause 3(7); it refers to schedule 1 and is consequential on amendment No. 26, to which I have already spoken. Amendment No. 40 would delete from clause 4(1) the requirement on qualifying bodies to ensure that the composition of the work force is reflected in the appointments made, and substitutes the requirement for a ballot. In speaking to amendment No. 34, I explained at some length why ballots do not promote a practicable way forward. Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 56 are also consequential, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out.
Amendment No. 54 again refers to relevant employees and thus back to the issue of ballots. However, it substitutes for the table in schedule 1 an entitlement for qualifying bodies limited to the appointment of one person for work places where up to 1,000 people are employed and one more for each thousand thereafter. The effect of that would be to limit the entitlement of the vast majority of City businesses to one person. Only the largest City businesses—less than 1 per cent. of the total—would be eligible to appoint more. For the vast majority of businesses, there would thus be no prospect of participation by a cross-section of the work force.
There would be an absence of proportionality. The retail kiosk would have the same level of representation as the business employing hundreds of people. Such representation would then be triggered only if businesses went through the ballot procedure. For the reasons I gave earlier, that is not a reasonable expectation.
In addition to those elements, even if—for the sake of argument—it is taken as realistic to assume that businesses would voluntarily go through a balloting exercise to appoint one person, the overall increase in the City's electorate, and thus the level of representation of the City's diverse commercial interests, would be small and distorted. That runs counter to the Bill's intentions.
I have responded to the amendments in some detail to demonstrate to the House why the Bill, and especially the process to which this group of amendments is directed, have been framed in their current form. I hope that also explains why I have to invite the House not to accept the amendments.

Mr. Pound: It is with a slight reluctance that I speak in opposition to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). Normally, to see his name as a Bill's sponsor is similar to seeing the old sign outside Lords cricket ground saying that admission was 6d, or a shilling if Dr. Grace was batting. The presence of the right hon. Gentleman is usually the imprimatur of acceptability to the broad feeling of the House.
As the right hon. Gentleman walks to the wicket for what he has described as his last season at the crease in this place, with his club tie around his flannels, perhaps a decent touring cap rakishly worn over one eye, and his bat tucked under his arm, the plasters around its base bearing witness to many past struggles, many of us on both sides of the House will think of the last innings of John Berry Hobbs, Hammond, or any other great batsman. We shall look with sentiment at what has been—and will continue to be—a most distinguished career. Be that as it may, tonight the right hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Brooke: I much appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has just said. However, given the metaphor that he is using, is he aware that a predecessor as Member of Parliament for my constituency, Mr. William Ward, accomplished in 1820 the ground record for Lords of 278 when he played for the MCC against Norfolk? That remained the ground record for 105 years.

Mr. Pound: Very few Labour Members are not aware of that fact. As has already been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and I had the benefit of education from the de la Salle brothers and the Jesuits. In fact, many of us thought that Lords was the Catholic cricket ground. We have learned more about it tonight and we have been pleased to do so.
It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, as he takes guard at the crease in his last season, is faced, on the Labour Benches, by the rude mechanicals from west London. Although I have no doubt that, as ever, he will gracefully caress the crimson wanderer to the palings with the waft of the willow that has characterised his parliamentary style, he will, I trust, forgive some of us if we see ourselves as Eric Hollies to his Bradman, or even Lillee to his Edrich.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He is not yet my right hon. Friend although after tonight's tour de force, I have no doubt that the Cabinet beckons him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which cabinet is that?"] Unfortunately, it is probably the cabinet of Dr. Caligari or the cabinet used by Harry Houdini.
My hon. Friend has attempted to do what I thought to be wholly impossible. He has attempted to make better a bad piece of legislation and he has attempted to bring daylight, clarity, sanity and logic into the most bizarre mosaic of mediaeval mummery that anyone can look at without doubting that their senses still rest between their ears. How on earth can one justify the Bill?
There is only one intellectually sustainable case to be made for the Bill. I have my views on the amendments and, in my opinion, the City of London is in many ways an extremely successful institution. It would be a glorious addition to the London borough of Hackney.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am not sure which amendment the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is addressing. I would be very grateful if he would start to address one of them.

Mr. Pound: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend goes into detail as to which amendment would extend the boundaries of the borough of Hackney into the City of London, will he remember that the borough of Islington also has a boundary with the City of London, as does the borough of Tower Hamlets? We do not wish the City to be annexed to Hackney to the exclusion of Islington and Tower Hamlets. Will my hon. Friend reflect on that point?

Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for so brutally and publicly correcting me. Although the resident population of the City of London is about one third the size of an average London ward, why should not the three adjoining boroughs be refreshed by the addition of new wards from the City of London?
On the generality of the 20 amendments before us—the overwhelming thrust of which is to seek to input an element of democracy, participation and accountability into the Bill—I do not think that even the inclusion of the ingenious proposals and propositions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington addresses the fundamental issue in the Bill. The problem is a yawning dichotomy in which a mediaeval structure, which is successful, does not have the courage to say, "We are remarkably successful. Yes, we are capitalist robber barons and we are something special."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again. However, he must differentiate between a Second Reading speech and dealing with the amendments. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must direct his remarks specifically to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Pound: I accept your criticism, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is entirely justified.
I am especially concerned with amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 26, which seek to address the democratic deficit of the franchise proposed by the Bill for the City of London. It is perfectly possible to argue, as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has done, that religious bodies and voluntary sector and community organisations


are already represented. Even if amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 26 are accepted—I do not doubt that they will be, as I have faith in the good nature, will and intelligence of the House—that will not resolve the issue, and will provide the City of London with no more than a fig leaf of democracy.
I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke for more than 100 minutes. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I am reluctant to speak at that length. However, in considering the Bill we should ask ourselves—as has been said in an intervention—what legacy we wish to leave the people reading the history of the 21st century. In discussing amendments to a Bill in the House of Commons in the first year of the first decade of the third millennium, are we seriously considering a mediaeval formulation of property franchise, which is not based on any justifiable or defensible system anywhere in the world? Indeed, it is a modern artifice grafted on to a mediaeval structure.
When those who follow us read what we have said tonight, will they be able to understand why we were seriously suggesting that any democratic organisation—even a soi-disant democratic organisation—in this country could, seriously and intellectually, try to base its franchise on property value and the ability and skills of employers, whether at first or second remove, and nominate its staff to vote on its behalf? I cannot believe that future generations will regard that with anything but amazement and bemusement.
If there were a clause in the Bill abolishing the City of London it would gain support but, unfortunately, there is no such clause. We must therefore content ourselves with the 20 amendments tabled by my hon.—soon to be right hon.—Friend. His amendments address consistently the issue of appointment, which goes to the heart of the concerns that many of us have about the continued existence of the Baltic trading post that has grown and swelled into the vast City of London today. The 21st century is surely not the century of appointments. If it is anything, it must be the century of election, of democracy, of accountability, of the—

Mr. Edward Davey: House of Lords?

Mr. Pound: I naturally exclude Labour's plans for the House of Lords, in response to that quiet aside from the hon. Member for somewhere south of the river.
We must avoid an appointments system that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington graphically demonstrated, is so open if not to misuse at least to misunderstanding. There is no accountability or transparency in it. How can one possibly attempt to structure a democratic model based on such appointments when any number of mechanisms may flow into the nomination or appointment?
9.30 pm
An election along the lines proposed in the amendments, the numbers of which have temporarily escaped me—I suspect that they will be whispered in my ear in a moment—

Mr. McDonnell: Nos. 3 and 40.

Mr. Pound: The numbers 3 and 40 come as if from the ether. The amendments would go a long way towards meeting the problem, filling the vacuum, providing that element of accountability. They may not provide the democracy that those who work and live in the City of London are entitled to demand, not as a privilege but as an absolute bounden right, but at least they would go some way towards meeting the need for accountability. It is for that reason—surely, no other reason is necessary—that hon. Members should support the amendments.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) strayed on to the issue of the Baltic exchange, some of us questioned whether he was really holding to the amendments. The House is entitled to know. Will you give us your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall obviously bring the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) into line whenever I think it is appropriate.

Mr. Pound: I was going to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) for that intervention, but I shall in future have to refer to him as my hon. and learned former Friend. However, he makes a good point, which has occurred to many hon. Members. I can see eyes glazing over and the laser-like glare of the Whips drifting in my direction.
I implore the House to take the amendments very seriously. There may seem something farcical about the Bill—almost a Gilbert and Sullivan, comic-opera aspect to it. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the Bill's sponsor, or to the representatives of the City of London, although there is something strange about people who wear fur hats and carry on at the Mansion house in the way that they do—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has almost run out of things to say about the amendments.

Mr. Pound: In conclusion, although there are comic aspects to the Bill—that is undeniable—I ask right hon. and hon. Members seriously to consider the amendments and simply to address themselves to the one fundamental question at their heart: will they make the Bill better, or is the Bill fundamentally flawed in the first place? We need to consider that. My contention is that my hon. Friend's amendments would make a bad Bill better. They would make it not defendable, but less indefensible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Perhaps it would be helpful if I clarified the Government's position on the amendments.
As we have made clear, the Government welcome the fact that the City is beginning to face up to the need to put its governance on a more modern footing. We believe that its proposals are a step in the right direction. I remind the House that many of the City's proposed reforms do not require parliamentary legislation. There is the


abolition of the aldermanic veto, the introduction of a shorter term of office for aldermen, improved qualifications for aldermanic candidates, a reduction in the size of the court of common council, normalisation of the term of office for common council men and the better allocation of members between wards. The City also gave an undertaking in Committee to adjust the boundaries of the four residential wards to preserve their residential character, and to review the number of members returned by the residential wards to ensure that they retain the same proportion of the overall membership of the common council as at present.
The proposals for a corporate franchise as expressed in the Bill are based on electoral systems introduced recently in Melbourne and Sydney, so they are precedented elsewhere. The Bill's provisions serve to double the number of voters involved in elections in the corporation from about 19,800 to about 40,000.
In general terms, the Bill provides for a report to be brought to the House after four years for further consideration of the progress that has been made under the current provisions and, I dare say, for consideration of other changes.
The amendments would make major changes to the Bill's core provisions. They would alter the basis on which voting entitlement would arise and restrict the ability of companies to appoint voters in a manner that is appropriate to their own way of working. The City corporation considered a franchise based on the work force in its initial consultation but concluded that that was not a reasonable basis on which to proceed because of the impracticalities of such a system.

Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend might know that in Havering, the borough that covers my constituency, there are thousands of City workers. A few of these workers are higher paid but many of them are low and medium earners. Is there not a justifiable case for arguing that they should be entitled to some say in how the corporation is run, rather than, for example, bankers sitting in a boardroom in Tokyo or Frankfurt?

Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that thought. However, it is not for me to get sucked into the detail of the proposals that are before us. Many different and fascinating proposals have been discussed this evening during an important and interesting debate, one of the main lessons of which has been my discovery of the pronunciation of "hereditament". My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation but not one on which I wish to be drawn.
For all the reasons that I have enunciated, the Government cannot support the amendments. We had a substantial debate on many of the matters raised by them when we began consideration of the Bill on Report in July 1999. Those earlier amendments were rejected and I hope that the House will not support them this time around.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Hon. Members: Aye.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
'business electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
'employees' electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d) with responsibility for electing the employees voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
No. 75, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out from 'person' to 'ordinarily' and insert—
'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies which are'.
No. 71, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'(d) is a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list as having a rateable value of not less than £200.'.
No. 76, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'(1A) the employees' electoral college shall reflect the range of occupations operating within the City of London, and shall comprise relevant occupational constituencies for which an employee must register based upon his/her principal occupation as defined under the DFEE Standard Occupational Classification Major Groups; and the proportion of voters to be elected from an occupational constituency shall be determined in proportion to the number of employees registering for a particular occupational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
No. 77, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'(1B) the business electoral college shall reflect the range of business activity within the city, and shall comprise relevant business operational constituencies for which a qualifying body must register based upon its principal business operation; and the proportion of voters to be elected from a business operational constituency will be determined in proportion to the number of qualifying bodies registering for a particular business operational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
No. 72, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'(1C) The number of business voters elected from the business electoral college shall be no more than 2000.'.
No. 73, in page 2, line 42, at end insert—
'(1D) The number of employee voters elected from the employees' electoral college shall be no more than 2000.'.
No. 78, in page 2, line 46, at end insert—
'(2A)—(1) For the election of voters to represent the business operational and occupational constituencies within the electoral colleges, each vote in the poll shall be a single transferable vote.
(2) A single transferable vote is a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not needed to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes or when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.
No. 74, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
'subject to subsections (1C) and (1D) above'.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I clarify the procedures by which we sought


to vote on the previous group of amendments? I gave an indication that I wished to move other amendments but they have not been called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We debate amendments in the groupings set down on the selection list, but we deal with them as we come to them in the amendment paper. We have dealt with amendment No. 3. We have not yet reached the group of amendments on which the hon. Gentleman would like to vote. We must now debate the next group of amendments that have been selected, and after that we will come to the amendment on which he wants to vote.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on why we did not vote on amendment No. 3, when there was a clear indication of support for it on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the Chair to hear the voices and make a judgment on whether a Division is warranted. In my view, the voices did not warrant a Division.

Mr. McDonnell: May I express my disappointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I felt that there were sufficient voices to merit a vote.
Through the present group of amendments, we seek to establish a new democratic structure for the City. In an attempt to establish the stakeholder structure that we discussed earlier, we propose to establish electoral colleges.
In the Labour party in recent years, there has been some debate about electoral colleges. There was an electoral college for the selection of the Labour party's candidate for mayor of London. We have learned some lessons about the drawbacks of that procedure, and we have had the opportunity to consider both the dangers and the strengths of electoral colleges.
A balance is needed between the stakeholder components in the City. The amendments provide a definition of the various electoral colleges. Amendment No. 66 deals with the business college,
a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.
A group of businesses would come together to nominate individual voters, who could go on to vote in ward elections to enable the election of the corporation. That would protect the business vote.
During previous stages of the Bill, there was discussion of amendments to introduce employees into the electoral process and to expand the role of residents in the franchise, and of attempts by me and others to undermine the business vote. Far from undermining the business vote, the amendments consolidate it within a structure which guarantees business a role in perpetuity in the City of London corporation.
Businesses could come together, discuss common concerns, promote individual manifestos and in due course elect voters who would nominate and vote for the City of London corporation. Although I have some concerns about the business vote continuing, this is one

way in which it can be contained constructively. Business could engage in discussion of its own interests and comment on matters that concern the residents—the environment, education, social services and policing—and matters that concern the voluntary sector and community organisations, as we discussed in the context of previous amendments. At the same time, business could form an electoral college with its own interests.
The second electoral college that I propose is the electoral college for employees. That relates partly to the previous set of amendments, to which we shall return in due course. I am sure that we will be quick enough on our toes to ensure that there is a vote on those amendments.
Amendment No. 67 establishes the right of employees to have a say about the management of the environment of the City, the management of the City corporation, and the corporation's performance of its functions.
9.45 pm
Amendment No. 67 states:
employees' electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d)—
I shall discuss that in due course—
with responsibility for electing the employees voters entitled to vote in ward elections.
I shall clarify that because previous amendments were misunderstood. The amendment would provide for employees to come together who will in due course elect the voters. The latter will be able to vote individuals on to the City of London corporation.
I have tried to ensure that the amendments comprise a balance of interests in an electoral college, which provides a procedure whereby, first, the residential vote will continue—it will not be diminished or swamped, as was suggested in the previous debate. Secondly, the important role of employees as stakeholders will be acknowledged. Thirdly, the role of businesses will be recognised. I have not sought to amend the qualification for businesses. I tried to ensure that the qualifying business body is included early in the Bill.
Qualification requires an element of physical occupation. I am not happy about the definition of physical occupation. However, my amendment on that was not accepted. The definition of physical occupation will apply to businesses, which will be qualifying bodies. I am pleased that we have established to some extent that qualifying bodies will include voluntary organisations, Churches and religious bodies. They will be covered by the business electoral college. Perhaps amendment No. 66 requires a wider definition and a better term than "business electoral college". For example, "qualifying body electoral college" would cover a wider range of bodies.
The business colleges as comprised in the amendment would be based on a franchise that the Bill defines. An additional amendment would enable an employees' electoral college to be formed. The members of those electoral colleges would meet, discuss and hold hustings to secure the candidates who wished to stand as voters. Having listened to the arguments in the electoral colleges, the voters would be able to cast their votes for candidates for the corporation.
Amendment No. 75 would provide that a person entitled to vote at a ward election would be
elected from the business college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies…
As I said earlier, we have not tried to amend the definition of qualifying body, although we may wish to do that later. There will be an opportunity for those in the business college further to reform the individual aspects of their voting entitlement.
Amendment No. 71 would add paragraph (d) to clause 3(1):
a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament—
I use the French pronunciation—
situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list as having a rateable value of not less than £200.
When we discussed previous amendments, points were made that I want to consider now because they strike at the heart of the amendment.
Amendment No. 71 would establish an electoral college of employees. How should we determine who those employees are and where and for whom they work? I reject the argument that it is impossible to identify, register and ballot those employees effectively. Why? The arguments put forward so far were used to undermine the demand for a residential vote and for universal adult suffrage. I cannot comprehend that registering company employees would present any logistical problem. I cannot repeat too often that the records for national insurance, taxation and health and safety regulation are such that it is almost impossible to argue that we cannot identify employees in a company and on a particular site.
I shall clarify the verification process. It has been argued that there could be no independent verification of those employees nor independent supervision of such ballots. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), although he properly cited research on industrial ballots and associated problems, the history of industrial ballots during recent years nevertheless shows an almost superb improvement in their conduct. We have moved on to another plateau of industrial democracy. That ensures that the mechanical processes of industrial ballots can be completed so as to produce respectable, verifiable and acceptable results.
With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the legal challenges to industrial ballots that have taken place were the result of legislation pursued by the previous Government, which was aimed at undermining any potential for industrial democracy and workers exercising their right to withdraw their labour. The arguments that an industrial ballot cannot be organised and that the registration of employees cannot be verified independently to ensure high standards of probity, correctness and electoral success are fallacious. For that reason, it is difficult to make such arguments against the introduction of an electoral college. Such an electoral college would give a voice to all those employees, who have been denied one by the refusal to accept the previous amendments. They are key stakeholders, whom we should involve in running the City administration.

Mr. Hopkins: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's speech. I am sure that a century or two ago,

when people were talking about registering voters for political elections as residents of particular areas or towns, all sorts of objections were made as to whether voters could be registered effectively and electoral registers drawn up. Does he agree that such objections represent an attempt to obfuscate a simple process and that, if people are registered on a particular day, the registers would stay in force for a year, just as they do for general and local elections?

Mr. McDonnell: It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster referred to the origins of the City corporation. It was formed in mediaeval times by groups of workers who organised themselves into guilds so that they could exercise their rights of franchise in those guilds. That is not so different from what we request; we want workers to come together in their individual units to form an electoral college, which could organise a ballot to select and elect the voters who would qualify to vote for the City corporation.
With the greatest respect to the hon. Members who have mobilised those arguments, they have been used against every democratic advance made in this country over the centuries and, therefore, they must be rejected. We must say clearly that a compromise is involved if we cannot have full adult suffrage in the City corporation. Involving the work force in managing the City corporation represents a compromise that should be seized upon if it wants to portray itself as a progressive organisation.
No one has argued that there has been any difficulty registering businesses for a vote. What independent supervision of the registration of businesses is there apart from the rating list? It has been argued that ballots of employees could be fixed by moving a desk from one corner to another. The same could apply to businesses. They could build an extension to their office, and by so doing straddle another ward. I do not accept the arguments that have been expounded.
Amendment No. 77 concerns the business college, and provides an opportunity to address the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster about businesses all being the same. In that amendment, I have tried to ensure that the business college represents and reflects the full range of businesses operating in the City. [Interruption.] I can tell from the mutterings that I have lost the House's attention, but perhaps I could draw hon. Members back to examining the critical issue of how to ensure the representativeness in the City of the business community.
Amendment No. 77 tries to establish within the electoral college certain constituencies of interest. I have suggested in the amendment that we should consider the Government's categorisation of business and industry. We could identify within that categorisation certain business operations and allocate them to those categories. If we allow a general franchise of businesses, the finance sector could dominate.
I want the business electoral college to reflect the full range of expertise in the City, so that it can be brought to bear on the management of the City corporation. That would bring benefits. The amendment would not only ensure that the financial sector does not dominate the business electoral college, but would draw in the other expertise to produce a balance. That means the lawyers, the accountants and a range of other facilities.
In our definition of qualifying bodies, we recognised that trade unions could become qualifying bodies because we are now assured that under the legislation they can be unincorporated bodies. That means that if trade unions are not accepted in the employee section, they could be included in the business college, because they are stakeholders.
I have also tried to overcome the problem of the residential vote being swamped. That is our biggest fear about the legislation. I have tried to do that by limiting the number of business voters elected from the business electoral college to no more than 2,000. That would significantly enhance the number of business voters, but would not allow the swamping of the residential vote, which stands at about 5,000 electors, although I am open to correction on that. [Interruption.] We have a real opportunity of establishing a business college that is representative, that will be able to create a business agenda for the City corporation in its own right and independently, reflects the different professions in the City and is not of such a scale, as it is currently, to overrun the residential vote. [Interruption.]
I plead your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the noise that is emanating from hon. Members. With my amendment, I want to try to tackle some of the abuses that we have described under the previous amendments, and in doing so to ensure that the business electoral college has independent—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.

Bill to be further considered on Wednesday 17 May.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MODE OF TRIAL) (NO. 2) BILL

Motion made,
That, during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Nigel Jones be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Paddy Ashdown be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Age Discrimination (NHS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

10 pm

Mr. Paul Burstow: There is nothing inevitable about illness and disability in old age. They are not synonymous. That is not to say that an ageing population does not present challenges; it certainly does. By 2031, nearly one in three of the population—some 18.6 million people—will be over 60. It is cause for celebration that, as we age, many more of us will continue to lead active and healthy lives, but it is inevitable that the number of people needing acute and long-term care will increase.
Change is needed in the national health service: a change in culture and mindset, and a change in organisation and practice. The NHS reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s created a breeding ground in which I believe ageism flourishes. More and more older people are being admitted to fewer and fewer beds for shorter and shorter stays; two in three general and acute-care beds are occupied by people over 65; more than half the recent increase in the number of emergency hospital admissions involved older people; and bed occupancy rates have more than doubled over the past 10 years in the geriatric sector.
The first step in eradicating age discrimination in the NHS is an acceptance that ageism exists at all levels of the health service. The Minister will know that the concerns I expressed this evening are echoed by Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, his hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) introduced a ten-minute Bill, the Health Care Standards for Elderly Persons Bill, only last month to press the case for an independent national inquiry. I certainly believe that such an inquiry would have a part to play in addressing the concern felt by many outside the House.
As one of the sponsors of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, and as a co-chair of the all-party group on ageing and older people, I believe that the issue needs urgent attention. Both Age Concern and Help the Aged have collected evidence of ageism in the NHS, and the number of cases rose steadily. In its report "Turning your back on us", Age Concern discussed the findings of a Gallup poll carried out in March last year. It found that one in 20 people over 65 had been refused treatment, while two in 20 felt that they had been treated differently since they turned 50.
Even the Department of Health has found evidence of discrimination. A review of renal services revealed that as many as two thirds of kidney patients over 70 had been refused dialysis or transplants. More recently, the spotlight has fallen on the use of "not for resuscitation" orders. The British Medical Journal recently drew attention to a gap between guidelines and practice in the use of such orders. An article in the issue of 29 April refers to an independent review. Following a complaint by the family of an elderly woman who had died in hospital, the review stated:
It was hard to avoid the conclusion that the treatment plan…was to do little more than allow the patient's life to ebb away.
At no point had the family or the patient been consulted about the decision to mark the hospital records "not for resuscitation".
Research has found that more than two out of three patients with NFRs are not involved in making that decision. More worrying still is the finding that labelling patients "not for resuscitation" makes them 30 times more likely to die—and with no say in the decision. That cannot be right or acceptable. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about what the Government are doing to stamp out such an immoral practice.
The need for action at all levels of the NHS to tackle ageism was brought home to me by the case of Mrs. Marge Terry. When Mrs. Terry, described as an "elderly and alert lady", was admitted to St. Helier hospital last September with breathing difficulties, she had every reason to expect to be quickly discharged and back in her home at Bawtree house, a residential home in my constituency. Mrs. Terry, who was 91-years-old, never recovered. After four weeks and five ward changes, she died.
A catalogue of neglect has prompted Mrs. Terry's daughter, Mrs. Eileen McAndrew, to speak out. During those four weeks, the NHS let Mrs. Terry down. Cleaning was inadequate. Bedside cabinets and tables were left sticky and dirty. Bins were left full to overflowing with tissues and other waste. Her records were not kept properly. Address details were wrong. Her age was recorded incorrectly three times in the same notes. She was left sitting in bed in a nightdress and bedjacket badly soiled with blood.
Mrs. Terry waited four days to see a doctor after developing a serious chest infection and a further two days for an X-ray. Soiled bandages were left lying on her bed. She was given little help with eating and drinking. As a result, food was left to go cold. Staff blamed her for that, describing her as unco-operative. She was even left to take her own medication.
On Saturday 9 October, the hospital phoned Mrs. Terry's daughter to come in as quickly as possible. Sadly, Mrs. Terry died minutes before she could get there.
Mrs. McAndrew put it in the following terms:
In the four weeks my Mum was in St Helier Hospital, I saw her deteriorate from an elderly alert lady, who used an electric wheelchair and kept me on my toes, to an old frail weak 91 year old going on 100, who kept asking me to take her out of here.
I was very disturbed by Mrs. Terry's death. I have already raised the case with the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust chief executive, Nigel Sewell. It is clear from the correspondence that the trust has acknowledged that not everything it did for Mrs. Terry was up to scratch. Although the trust has taken a number of steps to improve its procedures, no older person in hospital should be treated like Mrs. Terry. The care and attention to detail that are essential to promoting recovery were missing. The trust management needs to ask some searching questions. Why was she not properly fed? Why was she left to wait for so long before a doctor saw her?
Mrs. Terry was robbed of her dignity. That was clearly not the intention of any of the staff at the hospital, but it was the result. I want the trust to commit itself to a wholesale review of the way in which acute care is provided for older people. I hope that the Minister will ensure that such a review is undertaken.
What needs to be understood in cases such as Mrs. Terry's is that, although the health needs of most older people are the same as everyone else's, the oldest old people often have a complex mixture of problems and

symptoms. A medical profession that is increasingly specialised often poorly meets their needs. What is needed is a people-centred approach. By people-centred, I mean an interdisciplinary team-work approach. Therefore, medical and nursing education needs to take that on board.
In the early 1970s, the British Medical Students Association called for a joint core curriculum for all health professionals to achieve just that end, but the opposite has happened. Increased sub-specialisation has created a generation of doctors who are ill equipped to deal with the complex, multiple needs of older people. Reforms to undergraduate medical education are squeezing training in geriatric medicine out of the curriculum altogether.
Last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) highlighted the need for a concerted effort to tackle poor hygiene and cleanliness in our hospitals. With two in three acute beds occupied by people over 75, and the fact that hospital-acquired infections make death as much as seven times more likely, there is a crying need for investment in the cleaning of our hospitals. Saving through cheap cleaning contracts is a false economy as the cost to the NHS of hospital-acquired infections has risen to some £1 billion a year.
Last week, I visited the Florence Nightingale museum at St. Thomas's hospital to mark the 180th anniversary of that great reformer's birthday. When it comes to care and to hospital cleanliness, it seems that many of the hard-learned lessons that Florence Nightingale taught us have been forgotten. She introduced simple hygiene measures, scrupulous cleanliness and effective nurse training. All of that is described in her book, "Notes on Nursing" and in many letters and other writings. She said:
It may seem a strange principle to enunciate as the very first requirement in a Hospital that it should do the sick no harm.
Ageist assumptions in health care are doing harm. Work by Help the Aged as part of its dignity on the ward campaign shows that the most effective care for older people builds on the Nightingale legacy and creates an experience of well-being.
The key findings of Help the Aged's report were, first, that to create a "positive culture of care" that values older people, the needs of both patients and staff must be addressed. Secondly, staff motivation is central to the delivery of a high standard of care. Help the Aged found that the motivation and morale of staff and their leadership had a direct effect on the quality of the care provided.
The report identified six factors that are essential if we want to protect the dignity and to promote the recovery of older patients: a sense of security, of significance, of belonging, of purpose, of continuity and of achievement. Although, as Help the Aged has acknowledged, those six senses need further refinement, they provide a conceptual framework for understanding what matters to patients.
Help the Aged also identified some basic prerequisites for staff to deliver better services, the first of which is adequate staffing levels. Low staff numbers leads to a lower quality of care, as staff do not have the time—and, often, the inclination—to do what is necessary to provide a positive culture of care. They are simply too busy. The second prerequisite is adequate resources for staff to perform their roles. Effective medicine requires sufficient basic equipment to provide care properly and effectively.


The third prerequisite—it is probably the most important of all—is effective leadership to create "zero tolerance" of bad practice.
Clearly, the national service framework for older people, which is expected in July, will be crucial in driving forward change and driving out ageism. I hope that it will incorporate the model described in dignity on the ward. Will the Minister tell the House whether the framework will explicitly challenge ageist assumptions in the NHS and force practitioners to re-evaluate what they do? Will it require older people to be involved in the commissioning and design of services? Will it place multi-disciplinary working at the heart of good patient care? Will it make it clear that there is no place in the NHS for age-based rationing?
I believe that, even when the national health service's national framework is in place, there will be a need to make ageism illegal. Just as the House has legislated to protect the rights of ethnic minorities and disabled people, it is now time for us to protect older people. Outlawing age discrimination would not entail older people receiving treatment that is of no benefit to them or having treatment imposed on them against their will. Anti-discrimination would simply make doctors think more than they do now before refusing treatment for an older person.
What older people need now is tough antidiscrimination legislation, a national service framework that is people-centred and well-resourced, and a change in medical education, that equips our doctors with skills and understanding to work with older people. By ensuring that our health service is fit for older people, we make it fit for everyone. Quite simply, there can be no place for ageist assumptions in the NHS. Ageism must be met with zero tolerance.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has provided to the House to discuss an issue that is of very great importance to all of us. I congratulate him on the eloquent and considerably persuasive way in which he made his speech.
The issue is important to us, first, because most of us have elderly relatives, friends and neighbours. Secondly, many of us will, at some stage in our lives, be involved in the care of older people. Last—but not least—we are all getting older, and we are living longer. Already, one in five people in the United Kingdom is over 60. By 2020, we will have the highest percentage of people aged 60 and over in the European Union. It is essential that we ensure that older people are not discriminated against in the national health service and that they do not receive an inferior service simply because of their age. Therefore, services for older people are, and have been, a priority for the Government.
We know from patient surveys, for example, that older people are generally satisfied with the services that they receive from the NHS. However, there are spheres in which standards fall short of those that we should all like. Perceptions of age discrimination affect the confidence that users and carers have in the NHS.
I must emphasise as clearly as I can that any type of discrimination—whether it is on the basis of age, race or gender—is completely unacceptable in the NHS. In fact, discrimination contradicts the ethos and some of the basic principles on which the NHS was established 50 years ago. Action is and will be taken to challenge and correct such practices.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent Age Concern report, "Turning Your Back On Us". The Government welcome publication of that thoughtful report and the contribution that it has made to the debate on the standards of health care for older people in our country. Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting Lady Greengross, the chief executive of Age Concern, and I gave her a very clear undertaking that we wish to work closely with Age Concern and others in addressing the issue of discrimination in the NHS.
Age Concern and others have called for an inquiry into age discrimination in the national health service. The hon. Gentleman repeated that call tonight. I fully understand the concerns that older people sometimes get a poor deal from the NHS. We have recognised those concerns and take them very seriously. In 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who was then Secretary of State for Health, commissioned the Health Advisory Service 2000 to undertake an investigation into the care of older people in acute wards in general hospitals. He published the report, "Not Because they are Old" in November 1998—the hon. Gentleman might be familiar with it. The report made it clear that older people should receive the same quality of care from the NHS as younger people, based on clinical need, not on their age or where they happen to live. A health service circular was distributed to the chief executives of all health authorities and trusts, together with a copy of the report, requiring appropriate remedial action where the essentials of care were not being provided locally.
The Government followed up the report by putting in hand work to develop a new national service framework for older people, which we will publish later this year. That will be an important landmark for improving quality and equity in health care for older people. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the new national framework would address discrimination. I assure him that a significant section of it will address fair access to NHS services. He also asked whether older people would be involved in the planning and delivery of health care for their age group. We were very lucky to have the active participation of a group of older people and their carers in preparing the national service framework. Older people and their carers have been fundamentally involved in the preparation and development of the standards.
The national service framework will be an important landmark for improving quality and equity in health care. For the first time, it will set national standards and define new service models for the health care of older people. It will include performance measures for monitoring progress. Against that programme of action that we have already taken, a further inquiry into age discrimination in the NHS would not be helpful in solving the problems that older people face or perceive. We need action to tackle the issues. The important task is to concentrate on preparing for the implementation of the new national service framework to deliver higher quality services to all older people based on clinical need.
There are two further arguments to bear in mind on the issue. First, an inquiry along the lines proposed by the hon. Gentleman would almost inevitably take time, posing a real risk of delay in taking the necessary remedial action that he and others are rightly calling for. Secondly, his call for an inquiry rests in part on an assumption that the Government will not act unless such an inquiry finds evidence of unsatisfactory practices. He is looking for a means of forcing us into taking action to address his concerns. Nothing could be further from the truth or more divorced from reality. The Government are already committed to taking action to improve services for older people, as evidenced by the forthcoming national service framework and the development of a range of new intermediate care services designed specifically to meet the needs of frail older people. We have a range of other initiatives under way to improve health care services for older people.
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but things have moved on. Now is the time to get to grips with solving some of the problems that he and others have identified, rather than rehearsing the case for an inquiry. We accept many of the criticisms that have been made and think that it is time to take action to address them.

Mr. Burstow: The Minister may have noted from the balance of my remarks that I was looking for action. Since the issue of "not for resuscitation" orders marked on records was highlighted in April, Age Concern has received information on 100 further cases. What action are the Government taking to stamp that practice out so that people are consulted before their records are so marked?

Mr. Hutton: We are very aware of some of the concerns that have been expressed about the policies and guidelines on resuscitation and we are carefully considering those issues to see if there is a need for further action. That is a fair point and we are alert to those concerns. It may be that we will need to return to that general issue. I accept the hon. Gentleman's case that we need to do more to involve older people in the debate about improving services and we are trying to do that in a number of ways. The work on the national service framework has been informed by older people and carers through two groups which we set up to ensure that the development of the NSF was informed by those who matter most—older people and those who care for them. I recently received a joint letter from Help the Aged and the Carers National Association on that point. It states:
We wanted to write and express our appreciation for the way that older people and carers were involved in the development of the National Service Framework for Older People. We know that it is difficult to get these things right, but felt that their involvement in this case has been real.
It also states that the groups were treated as equal partners, their views were respected and carried weight, and they were involved from a very early stage which meant their advice helped to shape the final report to Ministers.
We will involve older people in other ways as well. The expert patients taskforce, which is chaired by the Chief Medical Officer and which was established in November 1999, is a partnership of people who are living with chronic conditions, voluntary sector organisations working in this area, health and social care professionals

and carers' representatives. Organisations on the task force include Age Concern, Arthritis Care, the British Diabetic Association, and the Long Term Medical Conditions Alliance, many of which deal with chronic conditions that impact greatly on older people. In developing its recommendations about an expert patients programme, the taskforce has made access issues for older people a key consideration
As I said earlier, the Government intend to publish the national service framework for older people later this year. The NSF will enable us to work towards reducing variations in standards of care, but the volume of services is also important, and the significant investment we are making in the NHS enables us to ensure that we get services which are modern and which will reflect the way society is changing.
Earlier this year, we published for consultation "The National Beds Inquiry". It shows that, by comparison with a number of other European countries, the NHS is a relatively efficient user of beds, with comparatively low bed numbers. However, there is a wide variation in hospital bed usage between health authorities in the NHS. Interestingly, it has not shown any simple link between the number of acute beds, the management of emergencies, and elective waiting times.
All this evidence points to the need to take a whole-systems view of services, a point to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention. Nowhere is that need clearer than in the case of older people. As he reminded us, two thirds of hospital beds are occupied by people aged 65 or over. Since the mid-1990s, half of the growth in all emergency admissions has come from people aged 75 or over, especially for conditions relating to the frailty and infirmity of very old people.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those findings require a different approach to the management of care in the NHS. NHS care has traditionally been about dealing with life's incidents, such as heart attacks and broken bones. Now an ageing population and increasing chronic disease means that NHS care has also to be about dealing with life's experiences, such as getting older and becoming frailer.
NHS care must therefore be modernised to reflect changes in society itself. The services that the NHS provides for older people are a vital part of that modernisation. At the moment, for too many elderly people, there is a lack of real choice. Many older people stay in acute hospital beds longer than they need to because they have not recovered enough to go home, but have nowhere else to go. What they need is intermediate care services to provide a new bridge between home and hospital.
Intermediate care will take many forms. Some services will be in specially designated hospital wards run by nurse consultants. Some will be in new facilities in the community, perhaps giving new purpose and life to cottage hospitals. Some will be about improved care services in the home.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his speech in the House the day after the Budget, announced a new national plan for the NHS. One of the five key challenges he laid down was about partnership. I shall lead the team that will develop that section of the national plan, and we shall focus on partnership in the health, housing, and social care systems to make all parts of the system work


better together and ensure the right emphasis at each level of care. That is of particular importance for older people to ensure that they receive well co-ordinated care.
All those initiatives focus on older people and will help us to build on the achievements and improvements that we have already made. We are making the biggest-ever investment in the history of the national health service, and the recent Budget announcement of real-terms increases of 6.3 per cent annually over the next four years will ensure that that investment takes place.
It is worth bearing in mind that that investment will allow the NHS to grow in real terms by a third by 2004. By any stretch of the imagination, that is a very significant investment in the NHS and its sustainability in the future. I believe that older people will be among the principal beneficiaries of that new investment.
The extra resources present us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the NHS radically. We have made a good start: a record number of hospitals are being built and every accident and emergency department that needs it will be modernised. Waiting lists are coming down. By the end of this year, patients with suspected cancer who are urgently referred by their GP to hospital will be seen within two weeks.
In addition, new chest pain clinics will do the same for patients with suspected heart problems. We are taking action to improve access to cataract surgery. Waiting times for hip and knee surgery—common conditions among older people—are falling. All of those developments are positive and welcome.
As the hon. Gentleman said, older people are the biggest users of health services. We want them to benefit from the new investment in the national health service. We have extended the annual immunisation programme for influenza to ensure that everyone aged 75 and over can have the flu vaccine free of charge. All people aged 60 and over are now entitled to free eye tests, regardless of income or health status. An estimated 5 million older people will have had free sight tests by April 2001.
Those are all very positive developments. They show the Government's commitment to improving services for older people, and disprove the contention that the Government are ignoring issues of age discrimination in the NHS. We are certainly not ignoring those issues.

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I mentioned in my speech the case of a constituent of mine, Mrs. Marge Terry. Will the Minister be able to deal with that this evening, or will he respond in writing later?

Mr. Hutton: I was going to say something about the hon. Gentleman's constituent. I fully understand the hon.

Gentleman's concerns and comments about that very tragic case. Mrs. Terry died in St. Helier's hospital in October last year. He will know that a formal complaint has been made about Mrs. Terry's treatment and that a thorough investigation into the circumstances of her death is under way.
It is not that I do not want to say anything about the case but, given the circumstances surrounding it and the fact that a formal inquiry is under way, it would not be appropriate or helpful for me to comment on it tonight. However, I am sure that all hon. Members would express their condolences to Mrs. Terry's family at what I am sure is a very difficult time. I hope that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me specifically to review the care provided for elderly people in his local NHS trust. We are looking carefully at care for the elderly in all NHS trusts, as part of the preparation for the introduction of the new arrangements for intermediate care to which I have referred.
Increased life expectancy is among the greatest achievements of modern times. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is something to celebrate. The Government recognise the valuable contributions that older people can make—and do make—to their families and communities. Wisdom, experience, tolerance and good citizenship are some of the precious gifts that older people share with the younger generations.
We in the Government are determined that older people should have high standards of care in the NHS, based on clinical need and on no other factor. As I and other Ministers have made clear repeatedly, discrimination has no place at all, in any shape or form, in the NHS. We sense that there is a real appetite for, and commitment to, changing the NHS into a modern, 21st-century, consumer-focused service.
We are determined to listen to what people—the users of the NHS—think about the services that we provide, and last week we launched the biggest public consultation ever on the future of the NHS and how to modernise its services. I hope that older people in particular will take the opportunity to let us know what they think. For the first time, every member of staff and every citizen will have the chance to speak up for the modern health service that they want.
Alongside the national service framework for older people and some of the other initiatives that I have described, the consultation is a unique opportunity for everyone to shape the health service to meet the needs of older people.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.